How Issa Rae and crew left an indelible mark on television history
While many iterations of the friendship sitcom exist, a Black woman invented the genre as we know it today, and a Black woman perfected it in Insecure
Image: Photo: Merie W. Wallace/HBO TV Features Issa Rae
As part of the A.V. Club’s Black History Month coverage, here’s another look at the importance of Insecure’s five-season run, which wrapped up at the end of last year.
When Issa Rae’s Insecure premiered on HBO in 2016, the need for tight inner circles would become much more urgent. Under a Trump presidency, to be Black and a woman meant a constant sense of impending doom, though the full extent of the damage could not yet be imagined. The words “overreacting” and “sensitive” flew around as the collective memories of ancestors warned us to stay on guard. The best shelter in this storm turned out to be a group chat: Black women of all classes and backgrounds found themselves connecting, struggling to parse together their new reality. Friends helped dam the rage, stop others from walking out of jobs necessary to pay bills, and gently guide one another out of toxic relationships.
Sanctuary was found in the lives of Issa Dee (Rae)’s friends on Insecure: Molly (Yvonne Orji), a.k.a. the best friend everyone needs; intelligent enough to help in a legal fiasco, quick with the hands in a brawl, and charming enough to maneuver through any social situation. Tiffany (Amanda Seales), the bougie friend who knows everybody’s business and can expertly plan any gathering. Kelli (Natasha Rothwell), the side-splitter, the hand holder, the emotional supporter. These women formed the pillars of support for Issa Dee’s vulnerable, terrified, unsure, but ultimately beautifully inspired and daring woman. Her mirror chats, where she raps as her own hype man before stepping out of the safety of her bathroom, articulated the universal humor of leading an insecure life.
Of course, as the series progressed, each friend’s superpower morphed into a shield for their own insecurity. Molly’s assumed fearlessness hid her dread of intimacy. Tiffany’s excessive planning and cheerfulness were a front for her unstable love life. Kelli’s comedy and support masked her substance abuse and, ultimately, her loneliness. As these women faced these challenges, the show became appointment television, drawing hundreds of thousands of viewers, many who simultaneously logged into Twitter to an open group chat of friends gobsmacked at Issa’s latest terrible life choice. They came for communal healing after the heartbreak of love gone wrong. Nostalgia-fueled glee permeated as a song that defined an era played. But mostly, viewers reveled in the joy of a hard-won and time-tested friendship. There were genuine moments when this half-hour comedy invoked healing.
Since Yvette Lee Bowser’s Khadijah housed her wild friends in her luxurious New York apartment on Living Single, which kicked off in 1993 (a full year before Friends), Black friends on television invited young Black adults to compare their professional progress, the sincerity of their lovers, and the strengths of their friendships with what they saw onscreen. It happened again in 2000 with Mara Brock Akil’s Girlfriends: Four women at different professional, romantic, and spiritual stages of life relied primarily on their friendships to get them through the hard times. While many iterations of the friendship sitcom exist, a Black woman invented the genre as we know it today, and a Black woman perfected it with Insecure. For a demographic that can boast most educated in the United States and the least desired for marriage, it’s fitting that decade after decade, Black women revisit and reevaluate these cherished relationships with one another on high-profile shows.
Before Bowser, sitcoms mostly focused on workplaces, educational institutions, or families, with some outliers like The Odd Couple, Three’s Company, and Golden Girls. These shows focused on the absurdity of these people being friends, centered around the final years of life, or relied on sexual innuendo—or in the case of Golden Girls, all of the above. Before the mid-’90s, most people in their late twenties were married with children or divorced. But as young people began to establish careers before walking down the aisle, the role of friends started to take center stage earlier in life. Friends held holiday dinners, watched over parents when they became ill, and stayed up all night after tragedy struck.
Perhaps there was a fifth friend in the Insecure group: the audience. The late bell hooks told us, “Loving friendships provide us with a space to experience the joy of community in a relationship where we learn to process all our issues, to cope with differences and conflict while staying connected.” Issa Dee attempted to escape reality throughout the entire series. She tried to imagine she could say what she really wanted to say to an enemy, or the different possibilities of a career choice, but the moments deeply embedded in reality—her long walk with Molly around their old campus, sitting alone on the couch that once represented the endless possibilities of new love and now presented a conclusive end to that love—linger in the minds of viewers, and challenge them to face their own insecurities.
Insecure showed that doing the internal work leads to the eternal reward of loving friendships. Behind the scenes, it taught Hollywood to look for Black talent because it’s available in abundance. Listen to the impossibly excellent Insecure Playlist on Spotify, or note the ascension of Natasha Rothwell as one of the most promising writer/actors in the industry, or the emergence of showrunner Prentice Penny as a guiding figure in Black television excellence.
A TV show cannot be a friend, but sometimes it can feel like one; it can bring you closer to an old friend, or encourage you to seek a new one. Sometimes, saying goodbye to a show that made you feel more seen in its five-season run than you’ve ever felt before can be palpably painful. Thanks to both Issa Rae and Issa Dee for the friendship—it meant everything.
127 Comments
Having never seen the show, I first assumed that “Issa Dee” is a typo. But it turns out that it’s not; Issa “Dee’s nuts” joke.
I’ll miss this show so much. You’re right about how it felt like a friend. The season where Molly and Issa were on the outs was as anxiety producing as any thriller to me.
I know this sounds funny(?!) coming from a gay white man, but Insecure felt to me like the black version of The Golden Girls; each of these women complemented one another so well, that you can’t imagine them without one another.
I like that read. It was definitely more focused on female friendship, a la the Golden Girls then the various romance might lead you to think. I can see them getting a beach house together in their golden year.
Insecure was a cool show but I mean, arguably it was way more of an irritating “hung up on my ex” sitcom than a friendship sitcom. That was kind of its biggest issue.
“Perfected” isn’t a verb I’d use casually.
Loved this show and appreciated this perspective. The whole friendship/community concept also makes me think of some of the YouTubers I watch or the podcasts I listen to.
[Deleted]
“Under a Trump presidency, to be Black and a woman meant a constant sense of impending doom”Jesus, get a grip.
Black woman are doing better than they’ve ever done in history. I’m not saying it’s enough to be satisfied but the media largely makes society to be worse than it is.
Seriously, talk of “the impending doom of the black woman” is a money maker and attention getter. It’s why so many black people in general NOW need therapy more than before. We are told that it’s so bad that black folks have become more mentally weak.
I guess, the higher up the ladder you go, the more mental problems set in.
Technically, wasn’t this genre created by two non-Black non-women – Robert Griffard and Howard Adler – when they gave us the TV flop Going Places in 1990?
No. Next.
No, and it also wasn’t created by those other 3 friendship sitcoms listed for… reasons.
“Under a Trump presidency, to be Black and a woman meant a constant sense of impending doom”Why?
If you have to ask why, you must be a straight white man who doesn’t know any Black people.
What has materially changed about conditions for Black women in the US since Trump left office?
I am a woman, but I’m not Black so I’m probably the wrong person to answer. But I don’t think anyone is saying life is suddenly sunshine and roses for people of color. It’s not. That doesn’t negate the fact that there was constant fear and anxiety under Trump! Things got demonstrably worse for almost everyone in those four years! And that was the point, not that it’s magically 100% better now.
As a black person I can tell you the fear and anxiety hasn’t lessened considerably if at all under Biden. There was a white supremacist rally in my hometown last week. More black women in my family died of COVID months after Biden took office than when Trump was in office. You can find data that Biden’s approval rating among black people has fallen a ton and many, even black women are dissatisfied with the future under Biden. Personally, I feel things have continued to be demonstrably worse under the first year of Biden, maybe even a little worse than under Trump.Please don’t take this to be an endorsement of Trump or that I’m some Herman Cain or Candace Owens type. I’m not. I never intend to vote for Trump as long as I live. I just think this is an honest appraisal of the current world that I think publications and commenters should take note of instead of just “Orange man bad” level analysis.
Fair, and I appreciate the input, my point was more to the seeming incredulity that anyone would have felt afraid under Trump. Not so much that things have gotten better as that was when they started to get worse.
Fair enough. I think the point is just that the writer of this article could’ve phrased it as “the last five years” but there’s just this trend with liberal bloggers to act like everything has suddenly changed with Biden when it’s hard to point to what has.
Things didn’t get demonstrably worse for everyone, though. Other than the number of deaths caused by Trump’s incredible mishandling of COVID, life didn’t change much for people whose heads weren’t buried in the news. It was business as usual for those who have to actually deal with racial oppression — and when it wasn’t, that wasn’t a function of Trump being president. The only non-racist president we’ve ever had was Barack Obama, and that’s because he’s Black, but that doesn’t mean things changed materially for Black Americans under his presidency, either.
Man, Trump crammed so much terrible into his presidency we became numb to it. The Muslim travel ban? Gutting the state department? Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement? Dismissing Russian interference into the election? Encouraging police brutality? Appointing people like Jeff Sessions and Ben Carson? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.These things all affected real live people, even if we didn’t realize it at first. For me, personally? A childhood friend of mine was killed while on a UN Peacekeeping Mission and his administration did jack shit about it. So yeah, that affected me.I’m not claiming ANY president was perfect or that racism was solved before he came around. And I certainly don’t claim to speak for Black people; I would never. But his hateful policies and disastrous incompetence absolutely made things worse in ways we all just kinda glazed over.OH! And how could I forget: ignoring all of the warnings and science about the pandemic, which has literally killed nearly a million people.
None of these things you’re describing are beyond the evil of any other past president. And I’d say Biden did a tad bit more to encourage police brutality by putting tens of thousands of them on the streets in the 90s. Everything every president does effects real people. Trump happened to be unusually incompetent, meaning his presidency actually had less of a material effect on people’s lives than most.
But even in your description you seem to underly how little materially changed. He may have dismissed Russian aggression, but it’s under Biden Russian military action was unable to be stopped. The immigration policies including the Muslim ban were horrific but many of them have continued under Biden. Cabinet appointments and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement are actually tied because Biden has made some horrific Cabinet appointments too, although it barely got coverage, including Tom Vilsack, a climate science denier.And I’m legitimately sorry for your friend. But more black people in my family died of COVID months into Biden’s admin than under Trump’s.
Some bad immigration policies have remained in choice (some against Biden’s will), but to claim that Biden is equivalent to Trump on that front is just ridiculous.Tom Vilsack is not a climate denier. And even if he was, the claim Biden’s climate record is equivalent to Trump’s is also ridiculous. His record is far from perfect, but there have been major, major improvements. How are they “tied” on the Paris Agreement? Trump withdrew, Biden rejoined. You really don’t seem like you know what you’re talking about. It’s either that, or you’re deliberately twisting everything to create a false picture that Biden is equivalent to Trump.
What about Trump’s immigration policies is gone under Biden?Vilsack literally denied studies from accredited universities on the fuels that lead to climate change: Vilsack: Agriculture unfairly blamed for climate change (desmoinesregister.com)Seems to me that’s pretty much definition of a climate science denier.I said the Cabinet appointments were tied to climate, not that it was a tie. Paris is a non binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it doesn’t matter if you promote those to positions of power who actively pretend fuels don’t emit as many greenhouse gases when studies show it does.But thanks for telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about with no sources, Mr. Internet Man.
I mean, I figured didn’t need to provide sources for things that are basic common knowledge in American politics, since you have so much strong opinions on it. But one very obvious example of how their immigration policies are different is the Travel Ban, which Biden revoked on his first day in office: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/1/20/22235986/biden-trump-travel-muslim-banThe fact that Vilsack said farmers are “unfairly blamed” does not mean he’s literally denying climate science. I don’t think you know what “literally” means. And for someone who claims to care so much about “material” change, it’s very funny that you’re so fixated on some statement a cabinet secretary made, and not on all the material ways in which Biden’s climate policy is superior to Trump’s: https://abcnews.go.com/US/year-bidens-climate-record-mix-progress-inconsistency/story?id=82354202To repeat: you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Yes, denying an accredited study’s results, as you’d see Vilsack did if you read the article, is the very definition of climate science denial. This is no different than if Trump were to say coal miners were unfairly blamed. And this is literally a line from the piece you cited that you somehow think looks good for Biden on climate:“And in 2021, America’s greenhouse gas emissions rose by more than 6%, according to the Rhodium Group global research institute.”But congratulations, you found one policy. A version of the travel ban. Except the previous versions of the travel ban expired under Trump multiple times and were halted by federal court injunctions because of his own incompetence anyway. I hope that makes you feel better.
He didn’t deny the results lmao. Learn to read better. Again, your fixation on a remark by Vilsack is very funny, given how you claim to be focused on “material effects”. So crazy how America’s GHG emissions rose in the midst of a major economic recovery. I wonder what could possibly explain this. I love how you expect Biden to be able to just reverse trends overnight. Implementing policies takes time, and it takes even longer for them to take effect! You have no idea what you’re talking about.
All the excuses you’ve made for Biden about how he hasn’t had enough time and things will get better and his approval rating will with it were made a year ago last summer and things have still not reversed.I’m not even all that big an Obama fan but there’s a reason at this point in his presidency, more approved than disapproved of Obama despite Obama inheriting a foreign policy and economic mess from Bush Jr. and that’s not even close to true with Biden’s approval. There’s a reason Obama’s approval was 15 points higher at this point in his presidency than Biden’s. There’s a reason Biden’s approval among black Americans is lower than Obama’s or Clinton’s at this point. You can keep making excuses, but it’s not like Biden has much time before the midterms to turn things around, because you know as well as I do, if you think it’s tough for Biden to get anything done now, that’s nothing compared to how impossible it will be when Repubs take back Congress.
People like you are the reason why Democrats are likely to lose Congress in November. It is counterproductive to set completely unrealistic expectations for what Biden can achieve in two years in a 50/50 senate in a country that has more polarization than it’s ever had in recent memory. You’re actively making things worse with this self-fulfilling prophesy, and it’s pretty apparent that you don’t have any genuine interest in helping Democrats advance their goals.
Lol, so the fact that I am saying that Dems are not satisfying their base, black Americans means I’m the reason they’ll lose? Wouldn’t that maybe be Dems not being able to do things that turn out black voters for them? But I guess shoot the messenger is easier.Black voters have given Dems tons of slack over the years. Dems have far from met their expectations from decades. The fact that Biden has fallen short of the popularity among black voters of even past Dem presidents shows just what a poor job he’s done in satisfying his voters. Republicans got an unpopular tax bill passed through a 52-48 Senate in a country even more down on Republicans than it is down on Dems now in a country that was already super divided in 2017. I can give you data point after data point on how every demo is sick of endless excuses from Dems when Repubs actually get their agenda through. But people like you will lead Dems to defeat if you instead choose to ignore the data and say I’m being too mean to Dems for poiting it out.
That’s not what you’re doing lol, don’t play dumb. You’re not just describing the attitude towards Democrats, you’re actively trying to justify and reinforce it by placing absurdly high expectations on what Democrats can accomplish in 2 years with a 50/50 senate. And by doing that, you help ensure that, rather than expanding the majority, we lose it. You’re going out of your way to demoralize left-leaning voters based on a distorted bad faith narrative. Such a great progressive you are! Republicans pass one tax cut through reconciliation (with a bigger majority) and suddenly “progressives” like yourself are tripping over each other trying to praise them for it, despite the fact that Democrats have accomplished more with a smaller majority…The GOP also lost their trifecta after passing that tax bill, so your entire argument falls apart on even a moment’s inspection.
If that is legitimately your opinion then you can say goodbye to ever getting anything accomplished, because the president’s party always loses Congress, especially after inaction in the midterms. And there is never going to be a large Dem majority in the Senate when tiny population conservative states get two senators. Funny how the same people who said Biden was a “progressive who could get things done” as his appeal in the primary are now mad… that people expect him to have gotten things done. If you think I’m praising the tax bill, you’ve truly lost your mind. And as I keep telling you, dissatisfaction with this inaction will lead Dems to lose this trifecta but you refuse to hear it.I don’t know what you expect me to say. That suddenly Mark Warner and Jon Tester are going to become progressives eager to gut the filibuster? That Dems are going to win like 5 or more Senate seats in these midterms based on a record of what exactly? Sorry, but thinking that if I don’t promise you sunshine and rainbows, I’m the reason for every bad thing that will ever happen is an incredibly immature opinion.
That’s not my opinion, everything I said was a fact. But I’m sure you’d be really devastated if Democrats lose. Biden was marketed as a progressive who could get things done, and he has in fact gotten progressive things done! But anyone who didn’t realize that his ability to accomplish his entire platform done was contingent on the composition of the Senate only has themselves to blame. There’s really no excuse for that level of ignorance. Google exists. I agree that the Senate confers a major structural advantage on Republicans! I’m very curious why you think this is the Dem’s fault. Are you mad that Democrats can’t force through an illegal constitutional amendment in a 50/50 senate? Or are you saying Democrats should implement forced migration to rural states? I’d love for you to incorporate this into your overarching “Dems bad” theory of the universe. Democrats would be much, much more likely to make gains in the midterms if there weren’t thousands of people like yourself who dedicate themselves to telling lies about the party and about how our government works. Democrats have accomplished a great deal, and the desire to expand their majority should be a major motivator. But people like yourself are dead-set on ensuring that the base is as demoralized as possible. Again, the issue isn’t your pessimism, it’s your repeated lies.
I would be devastated actually. Despite everything I’ve said I will vote Dem because Repubs have gone nuts.You seem so incredibly sure I’m some deep cover Republican troll trying to spread negativity because I won’t blow smoke up your ass. I literally voted Dem for Congress before knowing this little would get done. I was attacked by people like you for saying this little would get done then. Now I’m attacked again for pointing out the data showing people of all races are upset by it.You can keep going on about how it’s everyone else’s fault for being stupid. That Biden is doing a wonderful job and no matter how many black people say the opposite it’s fake news. Biden went to Georgia and campaigned for that runoff on the idea getting those seats and thus the Kamala tiebreaker would get voting rights, the foundation of our democracy passed. But he didn’t. And I guess to you, it will be the fault of those disenfranchised by Repub state laws who are at fault and not Biden if Dems lose. But reality will hit you one way or the other. It is just up to you whether to deny it or not and you’ve shown you will deny it. Ironically, this mentality is why Dems above all will get killed.You keep saying I’ve lied but haven’t shown any proof I have.But I guess Biden and Kamala endorsing Krysten Sinema in her 2018 primary and thus getting a Senator opposed to changing the rule that allows any Dem legislation, moderate, pragmatic or progressive to pass is somehow also my fault.
You’re consistently repeating easily falsifiable lies about the Democrats. It’s difficult for me to reach any other conclusion other than you want them to lose. You’re certainly giving off all the telltale signs of a concern troll. As I’ve said, there’s nothing inherently wrong with pessimism. If all you were doing is pointing to data showing Democrats’ polling issues, that would be fine. But that’s not what you’re doing. Not only are you saying Dems will lose, you’re saying that they should lose because of X, Y and Z. And you’re basing this off of lies and misrepresentations. You’re going out of your way to spread a demoralizing and dishonest message. I’ve been repeatedly explaining what your lies and misrepresentations are throughout this thread, but let me do a brief recap in reverse chronological order: 1. You’re complaining about Kamala and Biden’s successful campaign to win the Georgia runoffs as if it’s not a totally normal thing to refer to aspirational legislative goals when you’re campaigning. 2. You are pushing the narrative that Republicans are more effective at accomplishing their legislative agenda when they accomplished less with more. Literally the complete opposite of what you’re saying. 3. You keep acting like Democrats have accomplished nothing, despite the ARA and BIF passing in less than 1.5 years, despite an extremely high pace of judicial appointments and despite a slew of very significant executive and administrative actions (all things I’ve provided sources on, which you’ve ignored because you’d rather push a false narrative).4. You alleged that Biden’s agricultural appointee is a climate denier simply because he said the agricultural sector gets an unfair amount of blame for climate change.I’m sure there’s more.
Just because something is normal doesn’t mean it’s good. What has also been normal is voters voting for the opposite party in the midterms when those aspirational goals aren’t met. We can’t afford that this time because these midterms may be the last election if Republicans win.Cutting taxes has been the Republicans’ primary economic agenda for 40 years. Something similar has not passed with the Dems. The infrastructure bill and a stimulus are all well and good but they’re clearly not the same thing, no matter how much you want me to say it lest I am “trolling”.I responded to those sources you provided by pointing out your sources literally showed the exact opposite of what the policies were intended to combat resulted. Then you acted as if I was ridiculous for not expecting that. But I guess I’m the troll.I asserted his Ag Sec. is a climate denier because he denied an accredited institution’s study on climate change as a non scientist. It truly feels like trolling to see someone mad at describing this that way. You don’t get to dismiss science you don’t like just because it’s a member of your party who doesn’t like it.
Ok, let me clarify then – it is perfectly normal and acceptable to refer to aspirational goals when you are campaigning. In fact, that’s like the entire point of campaigning. Just because circumstances later get in the way of accomplishing your aspirational goals doesn’t mean it was dishonest. It’s funny how you whine about Democratic ineffectiveness, but when Democrats swing two senate seats in a pivotal run-off in a red state, thereby allowing them to actually pass legislation and appoint judges and cabinet officials at a rapid pace, you somehow find a way to complain about that too. Whatever it takes to demoralize the base, I guess! The fact that Republicans wanted to pass tax reform for a while doesn’t suddenly make it a bigger accomplishment…it’s still one bill, and it’s still much less significant than what Democrats have been able to accomplish with a smaller majority in just over a year. You know what else Republicans were talking about doing forever? Repealing Obamacare (another major Democratic accomplishment). Democrats’ legislative track record is vastly superior, even if “progressives” like yourself keep pushing lies about Republican effectiveness. Vilsack did not deny the results of a climate change study lmao. Stop lying! Literally all he said is that farmers were getting too much blame in the climate discourse. But even if he challenged a specific study one remark, it’s completely insane for you to treat this as indicative of some broader issue. Complete bad faith.
This is one of the most hilarious arguments ever. Biden spent the entire primary bashing aspirational goals nonstop and using the fact he didn’t make many of them as his reason for getting the nomination. Now apparently he can’t be criticized for the ones he made.So you now think appointing judges is up there as an important issue when you just said Republicans were ineffective at getting their agenda passed. Did you miss them taking over the Supreme Court? That’s way more significant than the tax bill, repealing Obamacare or anything else. But I guess acknowledging that getting a majority in support of overturning Roe v Wade in SCOTUS is significant means I’m a Republican to you.You’ve proven you just won’t read the Vilsack article:“Ball pressed Vilsack on whether ethanol and other renewable fuels are an environmental benefit, referring to a University of Nebraska study released this week that says cellulosic ethanol creates 7 percent more greenhouse gases than use conventional gasoline.“The study started with an assumption about the way corn stover would be removed from the land. The problem with the assumption is no farmer in the country would actually take that much crop residue,” he said.”
Vilsack: Agriculture unfairly blamed for climate change (desmoinesregister.com)It is beyond clear you are the liar, contrary to your claims of the opposite. I’m not going to waste any more time on you and your lies when the truth is right in front of you.
So would you have preferred someone who promised even loftier goals than Biden, and who would have fallen even shorter of what they promised? Your reasoning makes no sense. If your big complaint is over-promising politicians, it seems like Biden was the least bad option. You realize that the Supreme Court isn’t the only Court, right? The Federal Court is hugely important, and Democrats have been nominating those judges at a very rapid pace…obviously Biden can’t control when he gets to nominate someone to SCOTUS, but he has already made progress on that front. It is hilarious that you think this quote proves Vilsack is a climate denier. The fact that someone thinks one specific source of pollution is being exaggerated somewhat does NOT mean they deny the existence of climate change write large…Jesus fucking Christ. The level of bad faith is utterly insane. Literally indistinguishable from a GOP plant.
So you just choose to move the goalposts. Wonderful. This was a waste of time. Have a nice day!
If I’m moving the goalposts, it’s just to put them back where you placed them originally. In case you forgot: originally, you tried to say Biden appointed a literal climate denier as Agricultural Secretary. But now we’ve learned that your justification for this was the fact that Vilsack once argued that a single study on a single source of GHG emissions may have been exaggerated. Lmao. Just incredible. Such a good faith progressive ally!
So you now admit that he argued against a climate science study when you continually claimed I was lying. And again, this fits the definition of climate science denier I continually used. But you continue to change what I originally said, yet I’m apparently the one moving the goalposts.
Questioning the results of one study doesn’t mean you deny “climate science” writ large. Your allegation was dishonest, and you moved the goalposts by trying to act like you were merely alleging that he was questioning the outcome of one study. Again, this is just another example of your blatant bad faith criticisms. It’s very obvious you’re not interested in making meaningful and substantive criticisms of the Biden admin. The fact that you’ve fixated on this innocuous off-hand remark by the Secretary of Agriculture is proof of that.
Again, denying the result of an accredited institution’s study on climate science somehow isn’t denying climate science to you.We officially live in bizarro world.
You’re confused. Let me try and make this as simple as possible for you: Climate science refers to the entire body of scientific inquiry into the climate. This is a very large body of scientific knowledge. A single study on GHG emissions associated with ethanol production is a very small part of that larger whole. Nobody who actually understands how “science” works would ever imply that studies produced by accredited institutions are always 100% accurate and immune from criticism.
Nobody who understands how “science” works would suggest that questioning an accredited study means you are rejecting the entire body of scientific knowledge that the study fits into. So, to repeat: questioning the results of one study does not mean you are “denying climate science”!
So then does that mean Republicans aren’t climate deniers because they’ve accepted some of the most basic climate science?:
Republicans finally admitted climate change is real: so what will they do about it? | Republicans | The GuardianAttacking a study for saying a fuel helps cause climate change in order to promote use of that fuel seems to be pretty much the definition of climate science denial to me. Especially when you say that Vilsack who isn’t a scientist is entitled to criticize the study when he didn’t cite any other scientist or scientific study to back him up. But I think continuing this is pointless as it’s clear we’re not going to convince each other.
Great question! I would say that you would need to at minimum accept all of “the most basic climate science” instead of merely some in order to be taken outside the “climate science denier” category. Just to be 100% clear: are you saying that anyone who questions the result of a single solitary climate study is a “climate science denier”? You do realize that this would mean that a very large chunk of climate scientists would be considered “climate science deniers”? There are genuine debates that happen within the global community of climate scientists, just like every other scientific community (although obviously there is overwhelming consensus on the key points). I find it very funny that just criticizing Vilsack for not citing his source. You’re not even trying to say he’s wrong. To be clear, you don’t need to be a scientist to critique the assumptions underlying a scientific study. That’s absurd. Second, Vilsack has scientists working for him at the USDA.
Also, it’s hilarious that your complaint has now been reduced to his failure to cite sources. To be clear, you don’t need to be a scientist to critique the assumptions of a study. And there are plenty of scientists working for Vilsack at the USDA.
You don’t need to be a scientist to critique a study. But you can’t just attack a study based on no scientific study or scientist’s opinion. Citing sources for an elected official dictating scientific policy is actually quite important. You’d think someone who claims to know so much about science like you would acknowledge that.But again, it’s clear this isn’t a good faith discussion and so is pointless to continue.
Ok, so failing to cite a source for a claim makes you a “climate science denier”? You do realize that you don’t need to be a scientist to validly question a study’s assumptions, right? To link this back to your core thesis – you truly think that Tom Vilsack failing to cite a source for one remark he made about one study about one source of GHG emissions is a significant issue and a meaningful source of demoralization amongst left-leaning voters?
I mean you said people like me (even though I’ve voted Dem for Congress and will continue to) are the reason Dems will lose Congress. I’ll put it this way. I think the statements of a Biden administration official have more to do with an election’s results than the Internet comments of a Dem voter on a site covering movies and tv shows.
I said people like you make it more likely that Dems will lose Congress. I did not claim that you individually are more influential than Tom Vilsack, nor did I claim people like you are the sole reason for Dems’ electoral difficulties.I don’t think Vilsack’s remarks will have any impact on any electoral outcome. However, I do think thousands (if not millions) of people like yourself who constantly churn out dishonest bad faith content in order to demoralize Democratic voters will have an impact.
Here is what you said verbatim:“People like you are the reason why Democrats are likely to lose Congress in November.”And this is what I responded with last comment:“I mean you said people like me (even though I’ve voted Dem for Congress and will continue to) are the reason Dems will lose Congress.”I’ve had it up to here with this conversation honestly. Good night and I bid you adieu.
You can’t just omit half of your comment I was responding to. You also said:I’ll put it this way. I think the statements of a Biden administration official have more to do with an election’s results than the Internet comments of a Dem voter on a site covering movies and tv shows.Anyway, your original argument has been whittled down to basically nothing at this point, so I agree that you might as well call it a day. There’s no point bickering over semantics if you’re not even willing to own up to and defend your own arguments anymore.
These are all things that would not be as bad as they are if the prior administration hadn’t fucked them up. Again, I’m not saying Obama was perfect and Biden certainly isn’t. But even among a raft of lousy policy and shitty men, Trump was uniquely bad.
If he was so uniquely bad, why haven’t we seen more change under Biden?
“A number of deaths” lmao
But that fear and anxiety affected anyone not conservative or republican.
The only thing I can think of is that more black women have died of COVID than did under Trump and black women are percentage wise more likely to get COVID than they were under Trump.
There isn’t an idiot in the white house.
You’re right. There are many.
You clearly haven’t seen much of Biden.
They can’t be bothered with “actual events” and such, they lived in fear of constant doom from events and changes that never took place! Their imagination should be your reality, get it?/s
I’m black but this is overly reductive (as you could argue the article is). I’m no Trump fan and never voted for him but over a million black women in this country did vote for Trump. Given Trump got 27% of the LGBT vote, there were probably even some queer black women who voted Trump. We have to understand people with these opinions exist even if we don’t agree with them (and to be clear, I don’t), so let’s not make assumptions.
There may have been, but those people were voting against their own self interest. I just thought the comment from CosmicCow was a dumb question. But certainly I’m only speaking for myself.
See, again, this is so reductive and I can’t stand that it becomes the standard reply. I haven’t seen a lot of things get materially better for black women since transition from Trump to Biden and it’s manifesting as many black people are dissatisfied with Biden, even many of his own voters.Now to me, the many poor white people voted against their interests given the tax scam Trump passed. And honestly just someone like Trump having the nuclear codes IMO would mean all who voted for him are voting against their interests.But I’d say many Biden supporters voted against their interests too, especially in the primary. I could’ve told people his whole plan hinging on Republicans “waking up” after Trump would lead to people being unsatisfied with his accomplishments because it would never work. But I think we need to get out of the habit of telling people what their interests are and instead ask them what interests led them to their vote and give them the real deal. For over four and a half of the last five years, America has consistently been dissatisfied with the president. That’s pretty remarkable. We IMO need to narrow down why we keep electing these guys who disappoint us instead of shaming those who went with the more disappointing choice in our opinions.
I am black why would the doom only be on black women? Trump was bad for black people, gays, trans, poor, etc., basically anyone not a white conservative male. And nothing got magically better
Welp, now we know you are white. Congratulations?
Were you somehow unaware that Trump is a racist who hired white supremacists to serve in the administration?
While I agree Trump is a virulent racist, he never said anything quite so blatant as “I don’t want my children to grow up in a racial jungle.”
So what. The issue was that Trump, a virulent racist who hired other virulent racists at the highest levels, was elected and that understandably made a lot of folks, especially black folks feel even less safe than they already felt. The OP asked why and the answer is in your reply. He’s a virulent racist.
I wouldn’t say it was especially different for black people vs, everyone else. The biggest thing with Trump is a narcissist like him having the nuclear codes. As far as race goes, it was plain for a black person like me to see how widespread and virulent racism was long before Trump.
The level of bad faith here is hilarious. You’re comparing Trump’s four years being President to one out-of-context quote Biden made in the 1970s. At the time, Biden was speaking in favour of desegregation. The “racial jungle” remark was a reference to tensions that he feared would arise if desegregation was carried out via mandatory busing, which was unpopular in both white and Black communities at the time.
Meanwhile, Trump has discriminated against Black tenants, he has called for the execution of the Central Park 5, and he has spent his presidential campaign and his four-year term promoting racist policies and egging on racists and bigots at every opportunity: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-historyBut sure, one ill-advised comment Biden made in the 1970s really outweighs all of that. You’re so right about that!
Trump didn’t put 20,000 more police officers on the streets. But you’re right, I’m the one arguing in bad faith — not the one who took my single example as the only one I could offer. You are literally brainwashed.
At no point did I suggest your “single example” was your only example. But I’m sure you picked your dumbest and weakest argument to use as your “single example”. That’s typically how people make their points, right? If you think Trump is anti-police brutality and pro-BLM, you are insane. He literally ordered the police to gas BLM protestors for a photo op. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Wow, I feel like I’m watching neurons short before my very eyes. Must be all the MSNBC mixing with decades of microplastics in your brain.
I can’t believe these cringey libs don’t realize that Both Sides Are The Same. It must be the microplastics. Anyway, back to listening to my Glenn Greenwald podcast.
Yes; the left is a binary between liberalism and Glenn fucking Greenwald. Nailed it.
Wow, you really don’t like it when people assume what type of media you consume based on a stereotype, huh. I’m sure there’s plenty of media spreading the gospel of how Both Sides Are The Same. It’s a pretty lucrative thing to do. I didn’t mean to pigeonhole you! Apologies.
I hope you’re young enough to lose your brainworms one day.
both sides have brainworms
The people who think there are two sides are the ones with brainworms. So in a way, yes.
Truly beyond parody.
How? Please explain your thinking here. I genuinely want to know what you think about the notion that there aren’t two sides to life or politics constitutes “parody.”
Let’s not play dumb. What I was obviously responding to is that the claim that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that these parties form one “side”. Obviously there is more to “life and politics” than the Democratic and Republican parties…The reason that making this claim in 2022 makes you “beyond parody” is because it is an utterly absurd claim, which makes it difficult if not impossible to come up with a caricature of you!
At what point did “both sides are bad” become “both sides are the same”? Is there no room for nuance between the two? Look back at my comments and examine exactly why you characterized my argument this way. My thinking: it’s your mind resisting change.
Your comments strongly indicate that you think both sides are equally bad, even if they might be bad in different ways. But, I would be thrilled if I misunderstood you. This is your chance to clarify: do you think that Democrats are materially better than Republicans? Do you think President Biden is materially better than President Trump? Yes or no.
I refuse to see things as simplistically as you do.
So that’s a “no” then lmao. As I said, beyond parody.
This is why discourse is dead. You can’t engage with my argument without repeating that canned-ass “beyond parody” line. Literally doesn’t fit in your skull.
Damn, I wish my brain was big enough to realize that Both Sides Are The Same
Broken. Look at you. Just broken.
You’re right. My puny brain has been shattered. I am doomed to live the remainder of my life as one of the millions of sheeple who have been duped by the MSM into thinking that Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump.
Now you’re getting it.
Wake up sheeple, Both Sides Are The Same
Biden told you as much in the State of the Union if you were paying attention.
They’ll never understand. Dems will always conveniently do what’s unpopular, then get the benefits of being able to fundraise as the opposition party under a Repub president. The Dems will make far more at DNC gigs from that fundraising than in elected office. This is what happens when you let corporations buy your party out of any ideology.
Exactly. Look at their response: “Beyond parody.” They live in an alternate reality. Capital relies on the most rigid consent possible, and people like this person are its favorite little helpers.
No one is saying Trump is good. But people on sites like this are unwilling to hear how bad Biden is for people no matter how many people (even black people) tell you. There’s a reason Biden’s black approval at this time is lower than Obama’s or Clinton’s. Yet places like this article don’t acknowledge that.
You’re completely missing the point by comparing Biden’s Black approval rating to Clinton and Obama…the article is talking about Trump vs. Biden. Many Black people (maybe not you) are genuinely and justifiably relieved that Trump has been replaced with Biden.
And many might feel the exact opposite way but the article doesn’t acknowledge those people. Latest YouGov data has 20% of black voters having a favorable view of Trump and 31% have unfavorable view of Biden. Not a majority obviously but not like 1% either.
This is an article about a TV Show lmao, it’s not going to provide an exhaustive list of public polling. The fact that a minority of Black voters liked Trump and dislike Biden does not rebut the article’s point.
If this article had said “the majority of black women” instead of just “to be black and a woman” that would have made sense. But it wrote what it did on an article about a show which is why people responded.Oh, also the amount of black voters with a favorable impression of Trump went up again just since my last comment.
It’s so funny how offended you are by the fact that a TV show reviewer suggested that Black women didn’t like life under President Trump without providing detailed opinion polling to support it. Again, it’s a perfectly reasonable statement, and you’re reading way, way too far into it. It’s perfectly reasonable for Black women to feel that way, and many did!
And as I said, Trump promoted racism and encouraged violence against Black people at every possible opportunity: https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/5/30/21275588/trump-policing-policies-doj-george-floyd-protestsYou’re a troll. Stop lying.
That is far from the only example. Biden also treated Anita Hill terribly, which Hill herself has called him out for, said Obama was the first “clean” black candidate, was the architect of the Crime Bill that devastated black communities, and said “you can not go to a 7/11 without a slight Indian accent, I’m not joking”.It’s really sad that after one of the most unpopular first years of any president in modern history and before Biden even is officially a candidate again, people are still defending him. This kind of hard headedness is why the Dems lose elections.
Nobody is claiming Biden’s record is perfect…obviously he’s done and said some problematic things over his long career. But the claim that current-day Biden is not materially better than current-day Trump is simply laughable, and anyone claiming that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Then cite sources for what material changes have happened to wide swaths of the population under Biden vs. Trump. You’ve just provided no sources and been condescending.
Google exists lol. But since you seem incapable of using it, here’s a sampling: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/biden-2021-was-year-big-accomplishments-big-disappointments-n1286092https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-biggest-achievements-first-year-president-1670763https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-19/op-ed-one-year-presidency-bidenhttps://www.politifact.com/article/2021/apr/26/evaluating-president-joe-bidens-first-100-days-off/Sometimes condescension is warranted!
You found an op ed, an article from Newsweek, a joke of a publication, something that only covers Biden’s first 100 days in office, and an article that talks about Biden’s disappointments along with his accomplishments. But let’s be fair and look at those accomplishments. We have the economic recovery that started under Trump, the vaccine rollout that started under Trump, COVID relief which started under Trump, something any president with their party in control could do with federal judges, and the infrastructure bill without the climate legislation or BBB. Maybe drive around the country and see how great the infrastructure suddenly is.
Lmao so you have no coherent response, got it. You can’t actually rebut anything in the Newsweek article. The fact that there’s a long list of accomplishments from the first 100 days should tell you something! And obviously that wasn’t the only article I posted… To be clear – just because something starts under Trump doesn’t mean Biden doesn’t get credit for continuing and enhancing it! The Republicans were dead set on cutting off COVID relief, they were dead set on botching the vaccine rollout, and they were dead set on handicapping the nascent economic recovery. They would have succeeded if Biden hadn’t been elected. Obviously the infrastructure bill didn’t immediately fix all of our infrastructure lmao. Obviously it will take a while for us to compensate for Trump’s failure to deliver on his infrastructure promise. These things don’t happen overnight.
The fuck he hasn’t.
Yet if you mention this and similar quotes, more and more of the black community dying from COVID since Biden took office and Biden’s declining approval rating among black Americans (even in comparison to previous Dem presidents at this point in their presidencies) in the context of Biden struggling to get back some of his black women supporters (even if you don’t say you agree with these choices) you’ll get attacked on sites like this.
On one hand, I understand why people feel the need to desperately cling to a vision of liberal goodness. On the other, it doesn’t exist.
Yes, but this article states that as a change in black women specific to the Trump era. There have been many racist presidential administrations.
It’s drummed up garbage. 45 may have been crap but black women didn’t do any worse.
Plus, why black women and not black men? 45 absolutely made white supremacists “louder” but that’s it.
What a stupid fucking question.
I enjoyed watching this over the past 4 years (discovered by season 2). I’ll miss it.
Was really enjoying the article until you pulled out the “and the audience is the show’s other character!” cliche.But at least you didn’t say that “Los Angeles is a character.”
I wou;dn’t say LA was a character, but on of the show highlights was how beautifully it photographed LA, including part of LA like Leimert Park that rarely get featured.
So they created Laverne and Shirley? Who knew?
What about Laverne & Shirley?
Very different show. Read the article again.
The Honeymooners aired in the 50s. It was absolutely a show about friendships. Or if that’s too far back, Seinfeld debuted in the 80s. This is a bit like the time a TV critic claimed that Roseanne was the first blue-collar main character in television. It’s poor history.
Started my first watch of this show in December with my girlfriend, and I find it one of the most humorous, raw, sentimental, endearing and beautiful sitcoms of all time.