#like fine let's ignore the racism ableism homophobia and misogyny

[goodnight-islanders]

Some of y'all have weirdly high expectations for a trashy game about a problematic TV show

Most of this stuff is 10000000% on brand

[feathersandblue]

hansbekhart

reblogged your post and added:

I’d rather discuss what you think of my argument.

Then I hope you don’t mind me putting this in an extra post, as the original thread is getting quite long. 

I’m copying/posting your last reply here:

I don’t think it’s a contradiction though. I think it’s a miscommunication, stemming mostly from privilege. The disconnect in this argument is over what, exactly, is problematic.

Fandom has always imagined itself as a place of progressive values - a place where (predominately) women can explore their own sexuality and recreate community in a way that isn’t hostile to them, as a lot of the real world is. But this world we’ve created still has all of the prejudices that each member was brought up with - there’s no way that it couldn’t, firstly because many of our prejudices are invisible to us, and secondly because a lot of fandom works were created specifically to remix that already-existing culture: fan fiction is a mirror that we bend to find stories that include ourselves.

I think that the expression “fandom has always imagined itself” is a bit of a generalisation that does not hold up to close scrutiny: fandom is extremely diverse, and I don’t necessarily think that everyone who participates in it - or even the majority of people who participate in it - frame their contribution in these terms, or see it in that light. 

So while such a narrative exists, especially when it comes to the defense and representation of fandom in media, I wouldn’t agree that this idea of “progressiveness” is at the center of fandom for a majority of fans - at least not for those who never engage on a meta level. People often politicize fandom, but I’d argue that fandom, as such, is personal rather than political.

I absolutely agree wtih you that fandom content reflects our perception of the world, and all of our biases. But for me, that’s pretty much a given, and I’d like to add that the same applies to every kind of art and literature: whether we try to avoid it or not, everthing that we create is a reflection of our environment (geographical, historical, political), our personality, our prejudices and biases, our personal issues. 

And since it’s squeezed through what could arguably be called a feminist lens (because it positions female sexuality and self-exploration at its center), we fool ourselves into thinking that all the bad stuff - the parts of the world we were so alienated by that we were compelled to fix them - all that ugliness, we think it all gets left on the other side of the glass.

I don’t think that is the case, actually. At least I can’t confirm that from my own perspective and experiences. Very few people that I’ve spoken to - very few people who I argue with - would claim that fanworks are necessarily “better” or “less problematic” than the sources they derive from. Such a statment, I think, would be difficult to uphold when one takes a closer look at the average fanwork, the 90% between “My Immortal” and your Personal Favorite. 

I think that there might be a bit of confusion - or disagreement - about the nature and purpose of fanworks. In my understanding, fanworks are a form of wish-fulfillment and self-empowerment for those who create it. Fanworks can be progressive, sure, and they can be political, but I see that as side effect rather than a primary purpose. First and foremost, fanworks are hedonistic. They are the self-expression of individuals, the purely self-indulgent outlet for personal creativity. 

Of course, I have no idea what goes on in the mind of any given fan creator or writer. But speaking from my own perspective, when I write fanfiction, I write things for my own, personal enjoyment, for my own, personal amusement, or, if I wanted to be flippant: Because I can. Nothing inherently progressive about that. 

I’m saying “we” not just as a fan, but as a demographically representative one. Fandom is majority straight, white, and female - I’m two of those things, and can pass for the third. The reason I called this the White Feminism of discourse is because that’s where I think it comes from: a centering of a certain sort of narrative and victimhood to the exclusion of all others. Not necessarily out of maliciousness, but because a large proportion of fans don’t see the persistently racist problems in fandom - because it doesn’t affect them. Because they’ve never experienced racism personally, and are blind to the way they (we) perpetuate the microaggressions or outright racism that literally every fan of color has experienced in fandom. It’s a language we can’t hear unless we really, really listen.

Fandom is mostly white and female, though not necessarily straight, but that’s another matter. 

I think we need to make a distinction here, and that’s between fandom as a space for individuals, and the idea of fandom as it is currently presented in media by pro-fandom voices, which indeed often paints fandom as a beacon of progressiveness and female empowerment. 

When it comes to the individual fan and their contribution to fandom ... I hate to say it, but there is no reason why any given fan should priotitize anything but their own, selfish enjoyment. I’m not in fandom to contribute to the joy and happiness of other people. I’m here for my own. 

Creating art of fiction is always a selfish act. No writer writes something they don’t want to write (unless they’re paid for it, or course), no artist paints something that they don’t want to paint. That’s how we create: it’s our personal, self-indulgent vision that we turn into something that other people might enjoy. Or not enjoy, whatever the case may be. 

The argument that I often hear is “if your personal enjoyment comes at the price of other people’s hurt feelings, it’s oppressive and immoral”, but that only applies when I actually force people to consume the product of my imagination. But as long as they have the freedom of choice, why should their feelings take precedence over mine? 

Especially, and I feel that this is an important point that doesn’t get stressed often enough, when I don’t even know who these people are? We’re on the internet. I have no idea whether the person I’m dealing with is actually who they claim to be. I have no idea what their life looks like. I have no idea whether they were actually “triggered” by something (I’m using quotation marks because the way the word is used here on tumblr, it can mean anything, from mild annoyance to great anxiety) or are just striving strive for power and control. 

I can totally get where the people who write this sort of positivity posts about fandom are coming from, and I can get why it seems like these are attacks out of left field. But when you (and not meaning you specifically, OP - all of us) claim essentially that all media/fandom is good, and all ways of consuming media/fan fiction are good, that ignores the way that media/fandom continues to be a really hostile and ugly place for a lot of people. You may mean, “There is no bad way to explore your sexuality,” but it can sound like you really mean “Even if it includes explicit, unqualified racism.”

But who says that media/fandom has to be “good”? Who made that rule when I wasn’t looking? When I “joined” fandom, I never agreed to limit my own, personal enjoyment to what minorities find acceptable. And while I get that some people think they’re entitled to that - that it should be my goal as a “decent person” to make them feel included, safe, welcome, and cared for - that’s not what I’m here for. 

You may find this a controversial statement, but actually, it shouldn’t be controversial at all. I get that some people would like me to sign a metaphorical contract, with the fine print written in their favor, but the truth is that such a contract does not exist within fandom.

No other person has the actual authority to tell me that my own enjoyment should not be my sole and ultimate goal. People might think they have the moral authority to tell me that, but there is no reason why I should have to accept that.

Why should I let other people dictate what my contribution to fandom should look like? Or, what’s more to the point, why should I let a bunch of strangers with funny urls do that, who willingly choose to engage with the content that I post on my blog or to my AO3 account? 

ESPECIALLY because, when confronted with that exact challenge, a lot of people double down on that and admit that yeah, the racism doesn’t really bother them. Which is what’s happening here.

It’s not a contradiction, but an unwillingness to confront an ugly truth about fandom because it doesn’t personally affect you. Fandom has a huge problem with racism, and pointing that out is not an act of The Morality Police.

Well, I’m one of these people. Though I think it’s fair to say that while racism does, in fact, bother me, my understanding of racism does not conform with the US American definition, and I’m not inclined to re-frame my worldview according to US American sociological theories just because fan culture happens to be dominated by US Americans. 

It’s not only racism, though, is it? It’s  “abuse” and “homophobia” and “transphobia” and “ableism” and “misogyny” and so on, and I can tell you that most of what I’ve written and published would raise the hackles of one minority or another, if they came looking. 

Or rather, raise the hackles of some individuals, which is another issue: very rarely, in my experience, has there been an agreement within a minority group on whether something was actually “harmful” or “offensive”. So, when I’m faced with a couple of people who come to my inbox, often in a very hostile manner, to tell me that something is offensive to people of color, or Jewish people, or trans people, or disabled people, and so on, they might be making a lot of noise, but I have no real means to say whether they are actually representative of the minority they claim to speak for.

In reality, it might look a little like this: My piece of dark fic, which was clearly labeled as such, got twohundred hits. Ten people left kudos, one left a positive but trivial comment, and now suddenly three people, one after the other, leave their comments in quick succession, neiher politely worded nor inviting a discussion, informing me that this piece of fiction is problematic and needs to disappear. Because they say so. 

That’s the point where I have to ask myself: if I give in to that kind of intimidation and pressure, am I doing it because these people are in the right, or because I’m afraid? Am I willing to follow their moral code, which apparently includes dogpiling, intimidation, and name-calling, or do I trust my own? 

Meanwhile, the people in my comment section are in all likelihood not willing to take my opinion into account. Any attempt on my side to justify myself just leads to statements like “check your privilege”, “you’re a nazi apologist”, “white (cis, straight, abled) people don’t get a say in this”. Disagreement is not an option. They’ve decided that my content problematic, that I am problematic, and that’s that.

I’ve seen this play out in a variety of instances, and quite honestly, I think it’s very important that people don’t give in to that kind of bullying. 

Finally, let me just add, for good measure: I think you’re right in one point, and that is that we might want to stop pretending that fandom is all about progressiveness, when progressiveness is mostly accidental, and yes, we can absolutely point out that fandom content reflects the preferences of those who contribute to it. If that’s mostly white women, the content will reflect that, as we’ve basically agreed above. 

On the other hand, if everyone keeps making the kind of content that they want to see, instead of bemoaning that others don’t make it for them, fandom will continue to change.

Just don’t expect fans to go to great length to make fandom a better place for others if that’s not what they signed up for. 

[casgrouprules]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Guidelines

Rules

On-topic / off-topic

Talking about sex

Content warnings

Ch-ch-changes

What to do if you disagree with any of this

~

INTRODUCTION

Cassian somehow runs a bunch of Telegram groups for various subjects. The following rules apply in every Telegram group that Cassian runs.

If anything happens that makes you feel uncomfortable and/or if anyone breaks these rules, feel free to contact Cassian privately to talk it over.

Cassian will distribute warnings or bans to people who are likely to continue to cause harm. For example, if someone makes a sexist comment and doesn't seem to realise that what they've said is unacceptable, they're likely to do so again. Cassian would give this person a warning, and if despite this they made another sexist comment Cassian would likely ban them.

Exceptions and group-specific guidelines will be available in individual group descriptions on Telegram, and you should check them out before chatting.

~

GUIDELINES

Remember that some of these groups are for people who are marginalised by society, and as such are making themselves vulnerable just by being open about themselves in a space with others. Try to be kind.

Don't assume someone's pronouns or relationship preferences based on their avatar, name, username, the gender of their partner(s), etc. Default to singular they or avoid pronouns entirely until you know someone's pronouns. If you can ask, do ask; asking privately is encouraged.

Treat each other with respect, understanding and kindness. These groups are for mutual support, not debate. If someone is clearly upset by something you're saying, drop the subject. If someone does things differently to you, remember that your way isn't necessarily better than theirs.

If the subject of the group is not directly relevant to your life experience, tread carefully. For example, if you join the non-monogamy group but you don't identify that way, be proactively honest about that and do not expect others to educate you on what it means to be non-monogamous. (Some groups require you to be a member of the marginalised group to join; check the group description.)

If you feel that someone's behaviour is in some way unacceptable or dodgy enough that you want to push back, talk to Cassian.

Profanity/swearing is fine unless otherwise specified in the group's individual description on Telegram.

Admin decisions are final.

~

RULES

Failing to follow these rules will lead to either a warning (if it seems like you have good intentions and it's your first offence) or an immediate ban (if you clearly have bad intentions or you've been previously warned).

DO NOT disrespect mods, ignore requests and warnings from the mods, keep arguing after an admin has made a final decision, stuff like that.

DO NOT prevent communication with mods or admins, for example by blocking, ignoring, or withdrawing consent for communication. (Taking time out during a private and important conversation with a mod for any reason is okay, just let the mod know that you will be gone for a while but you'll be back, and give a timescale if you can.)

DO NOT advocate for conversion therapy (eg: for queer and trans people), applied behaviour analysis (ABA, eg: for autistic people), or anything that implies that who and what we are is anything other than normal and good.

DO NOT post photos of genitals or make unsolicited sexual comments. This includes explicit and ambiguous comments, and public and private comments.

DO NOT use animated stickers. Telegram currently has no setting to auto-pause animated stickers, so this is an accessibility issue.

DO NOT tell someone that their conversation is getting off-topic if you are not a mod. Tell Cassian or a mod instead.

DO respect someone's identity, gender, pronouns, self-diagnosis, etc. That means NO transphobia, biphobia, misogyny, transmisogyny, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, ableism, and so on.

~

ON-TOPIC / OFF-TOPIC

Some groups have been split into on-topic and off-topic at the request of some of the group members who want to keep their input relevant to their interests.

A side-effect of having separate groups for on- and off-topic discussion is that there are grey-area topics that are kinda related to the topic but not very, and it could be argued that the discussion does not belong. An example of this would be discussion of sex and sexuality in a group about non-monogamy.

Strict on-/off-topic policing tends to stifle discussion, because people become afraid to talk about things in case someone tells them not to. Creating new on-topic groups to talk about ever more and more specific subjects means that groups become quieter and quieter, and lively discussion about related subjects becomes more difficult and complicated. Where some people appreciate many smaller and more specific groups, others find being in too many groups overwhelming.

It is worth bearing in mind that in any on-topic group there will be grey-area topics. It’s not possible to sort all conversations strictly into on-topic and off-topic. Even in the most well-moderated on-topic group there will be conversations that are not interesting to one or two people, and everyone will have to ignore something at some point.

Having said that, if you feel that a group may be getting off-topic, you can talk to Cassian privately about it. (Meta-discussion about whether or not something is off-topic is likely to be pretty disruptive and off-topic in itself!) Cassian will probably make a decision based on how valuable a conversation seems to be to the group, how likely it is that a lot of people will benefit from it, how likely it is to be upsetting anyone or causing them to become disinterested in the group overall, etc. They don’t read all the messages in all the groups all the time so they may not have noticed!

Please note that suggesting to other people that their conversation might be or is off-topic is against the rules. Members should not be policing each other; it just makes people worry that someone will call them out if they talk about something in a grey area, and then they refrain from talking about something that’s important to them.

~

TALKING ABOUT SEX

In some groups, talking about sex and sexuality is completely fine and requires no content warnings. In these spaces it's really important that people feel comfortable, supported and safe to discuss sex and sexuality. For this to work it has to be totally normal and commonplace to talk about sex as a neutral, non-taboo topic.

However, I have noticed a pattern in Telegram groups that I'm in.

Every once in a while someone joins who makes inappropriate or sexual comments towards others. Sometimes they’re cis, and sometimes they’re trans or nonbinary. Sometimes it’s in a trans-focused group, sometimes not. Sometimes it’s overt and in-group, and sometimes they send private messages. 

But up until now, every person making inappropriate comments has previously told us that they were assigned male at birth, and they have always been inappropriate towards feminine people or people who have told us that they were assigned female at birth.

This tendency makes it a lot harder for everyone, and especially vulnerable people, trans feminine people, and people who were assigned female at birth, to comfortably discuss sex and sexuality.

Someone talking freely and comfortably about sex or sexuality is not a sexual invitation. Do not treat it as such.

If you send someone unsolicited sexual comments, publicly or privately, explicit or ambiguous, you will be banned immediately.

This is not aimed at people of any particular gender. It does not imply that all people who were assigned male at birth are inherently misogynist or harmful. But because of the pattern mentioned above, if you were assigned male at birth you are invited to take extra care to ensure that what you are about to say cannot be read as a sexually motivated message, regardless of your gender identity. While only a small minority of members have behaved badly in this way, the damage is significant; a few words can make an entire group feel unsafe long after the event.

If someone has sent you or someone else a message that has made you feel uncomfortable, regardless of the gender you or they were assigned at birth, and even if you're not sure whether or not it's intentionally sexual in nature, tell Cassian.

~

CONTENT WARNINGS

People in marginalised groups are more likely to be affected by trauma and mental health issues. Do your best to use content warnings for any topics people ask you to.

Content warnings are important for people who are negatively affected by some topics of conversation that unaffected people sometimes bring up casually and without warning. An example of this might be someone bringing up a recent news story about rape when someone in the group is a rape survivor; most people in the group will take it in their stride but when it's raised with no warning it could affect the rape survivor very badly and for a much longer time afterwards.

Content warnings allow people to avoid topics entirely, but they also allow people to go into a conversation mentally and emotionally prepared.

You should use content warnings for the following at all times, unless otherwise stated in the individual group description:

Violence

Murder

Gore

Domestic abuse (eg: domestic violence, child abuse)

Self-injury/self-harm

Suicide

Common addictions (eg: alcohol, recreational drugs)

Rape

Sex

Porn

Nudity - photos of nudity require a CW, artistic depictions of nudity (such as drawings, paintings, etc.) do not require a CW.

A note on nudity

Double standards with nudity and "NSFW" (not safe for work) mean that in most online places it's okay to show a naked flat/masculine chest, but not breasts. Here, we have one rule for all genders and all bodies. If you're not sure whether to use a content warning, compare the gendered double standard and choose the more cautious option.

For example, photos that contain nude breasts are sensitive content and you should probably use a content warning, and because of this, photos of flat/masculine chests should also have a content warning.

~

HOW TO USE CONTENT WARNINGS

Telegram allows formatting, including hiding text. When posted, this text will become visible with a tap or click.

Include a visible warning at the start of the message with the obscured text, expressing the approximate topic. Start it with CW (content warning) or CN (content note). E.g. CW: Violence. It has to be at the start so that it is visible in previews from the chat list.

Type your message, and then highlight the text you would like to hide, and choose “spoiler”.

If you cannot be bothered to do this for your message, do not send it at all.

~

CH-CH-CHANGES

If you think something has been missed out or you would like Cassian to add or clarify anything here or privately, get in touch. The rules are not exhaustive or set in stone and may change over time.

Cassian reserves the right to moderate harmful behaviour even if it's not outlined in these rules.

~

WHAT TO DO IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THIS

Feel free to make your own group with your own rules. More choice of groups for marginalised people is no bad thing, and different levels of "safe space" and "free speech" will suit different people.

Anyone is free to:

Join and leave without giving any justification (though folks may worry about you if you've been friendly and active for a while and you don't say goodbye);

Make new groups with different rules and invite others to join.

~

Thanks for reading all the way to the end!

[timefought]

   rules.

   i.

     my name is kitty. i am 24 years old, and am wiradjuri & ashkenazi/sephardi. i live in australia ( gmt+10 ). i studied palaeobiology, evolutionary biology & animal behaviour, but dropped out to be terminally ill instead. i’ve been roleplaying since neopets days. i grew up watching dr who ( & my middle name is a very obscure dr who reference ), and am a life-long classic/eu fan. my pronouns are they/them exclusively.

    ii.

   as you might have twigged from the above, i’m very sick. replies sometimes take a long time. i try to work on them as fast as possible but sometimes life aint like that. i DO miss replies relatively often, so you’re always welcome to pop into my IMs to let me know if you’ve posted or just to chat, but i’m sorry in advance if you like very prompt replies. i’m not that bitch. i wish i was. please just dont badger me. i’m doing my best, my best just sucks.

   iii.

     PLEASE read my about thoroughly. i know it’s dense, i’ve tried to break it up as much as possible for ease of reading & locating specific information. it’s also a continuous wip;; i am adding more and more to it as i go to make things easier on partners and potential partners to find what they need. i really will know if you haven’t read it.

   iv.

     i tend to write long replies, with icons if my partner uses them. i don’t necessarily expect it to be returned, but i do require a proper response i can reply to. charlie wont chase after your muse, under pretty much any circumstances, and i need some substance to a reply to be able to write something. generally, i don't really enjoy chat type things. i like something to be happening.

   v.

     i cant believe have to say this but: racism is bad. nazis are bad. fascism is bad. conservatism is bad. transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, ableism, anti-semitism —- theyre all bad. don’t do them. yes, i will call out users who act like fuckwits. if that’s ‘causing drama’ to you, you’re free to hop on your bike and idk grow some ethics i guess. if you couldn’t tell from the content of my blog, i don’t allow that bullshit & if you do, even by just ignoring it and avoiding the topic entirely, you’re not welcome either. i get that’s a hardline stance to take. if that scares you, i cant say im sorry. this goes for people who ship incest/paedophilia/rape etc, too.

   vi.

     smut, shipping, etc: obviously, i’m an adult. i’m 24. i will not write anything even vaguely sexual with anyone under 18. i won’t write anything more than platonic/mildly vaguely romantic with anyone under 18. i am open to ships. a brief note, though;; charlie mostly prefers women in both her platonic and romantic life. men are, mostly, simply a means to a financial end. yes, she’s likely in many context to vaguely proposition men. this isnt an attempt to force anything, it’s just the character, & to be honest she's probably just gonna mug em anyway. i am open to shipping otherwise generally, you’re free to come into my inbox at any time or send a meme or anything if you’d like to. chances are i’ll be open to it.

   vii.

     triggers will be tagged on request, but any issue you have can be brought to me directly. i’m happy to chat about anything, so dont be worried about approaching me. it’s all good.

   viii.

     i don’t send in rule passwords. i do read rules, but i just hate doing that. sorry.

   ix.

     please if you’re following from a personal for a rp sideblog, i need you to tell me ( personally or somewhere on your blog that is easy to find ) what blog its for. if you don’t i might block you, just because ive had personals cause me problems before. ( longtime personals-of-people-i-know are obviously fine lol )

   x.

     i have discord available on request for plotting/chats, and my IMs are always open. im usually around if i’m awake.

     theres probably more to come.

[recentnews18-blog]

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/the-gang-confronts-me-too-in-one-of-the-most-explosively-funny-sunnys-in-years/

The Gang confronts Me Too in one of the most explosively funny Sunnys in years

Kaitlin Olson, Charlie Day, Glenn Howerton, Rob McElhenney, Danny DeVitoPhoto: Patrick McElhenney/FXX

“I feel like we should clap.”

Okay, let’s talk about one of the funniest moments in It’s Always Sunny history.

Advertisement

First a word about spoilers. Hey—don’t read a review unless you’ve seen the thing that’s being reviewed. And, if you do, don’t complain about the review needing to discuss things that would have been great to see without being “spoiled” by you making the inexplicable choice to read a review before seeing the thing being reviewed.

Okay.

It’s Always Sunny In PhiladelphiaSeason 13

Advertisement

So “Time’s Up For The Gang” sees Mac, Dee, Charlie, Dennis (returning after being MIA last week), and Frank attending a sexual harassment seminar because Paddy’s has been put on an internet “shitty bar list” of Philly establishments hostile to women. The intrepid and unsuspecting moderators (Marypat Farrell and Humphrey Ker), after enduring a barrage of inappropriate, profane, and otherwise point-missing interruptions, separate the Gang for some breakout sessions, perhaps thinking to dilute their charges’ obvious awfulness with a little distance.

That . . . does not work.

The male moderator, Alan, tries out a little roleplaying to address Mac and Dee’s clear lack of comprehension about appropriate workplace behavior. Asking Mac what his function is at Paddy’s elicits Mac’s traditional inflated sense of himself as the bar’s badass peacekeeping resident Swayze, although Dee and Charlie (also in the session) note that he’s just supposed to check IDs, which he doesn’t do. (Continuing the ongoing meta-jokes about Mac’s evolving—or devolving—role, Charlie muses, “He’s just, like, our gay guy now.”) Dee, being Dee, peppers the patiently befuddled Alan with questions about her motivation for playing someone going into a bar (“To get a drink?,” he suggests), settling finally and inexplicably on “revenge.” Alan, to get things rolling, says fine, and then the seemingly simple scene begins.

Advertisement

Rob McElhenneyPhoto: Patrick McElhenney/FXX

Now—and just to prolong the lead-up to the gag for one more delicious moment—one might imagine that one knows where this is going. Dee and Mac are deeply into their roles here, and those roles are informed by the characters’ deep-rooted delusions about how they’re seen and who they are. Dee is a great actress. Mac is the “Sheriff of Paddy’s.” They’re both awful people. The episode, written by Megan Ganz, is about how awful people either deliberately or through societal conditioning turn any discussion of sexual harassment, consent, and rape culture into a boorish, facile intellectual shitshow. So Dee—seen entering the seminar singing a gloating “Time’s Up!” chant at the guys’ being called out in public—will (ineptly) play at being superior, while Mac will say something inappropriate under the guise of trying to score the “points” he thinks Paddy’s needs in order to get off the internet’s shit list.

Instead, Mac greets Dee’s opening line by hoisting Dee fully into the air by her vagina.

Advertisement

Now, there’s a lot going on here, and all of it works to produce the biggest out-loud laugh I’ve gotten from a TV show in a long time. There’s the way in which Mac’s action echoes a phrase Donald Trump cemented into the American lexicon and elevates it (along with Dee) to shocking, absurdist heights. There’s the execution of the gag, which would have fallen flat if it didn’t look so seamlessly, impossibly actual. There’s the joke of Mac’s ridiculously buff new body, yet another physical transformation whose obvious offscreen effort on the part of Rob McElhenney is tossed off along with the Gang’s perpetual dismissal of Mac. There’s Dee’s awestruck reaction to Alan’s horrified assessment about Mac’s grab being designed to make Dee feel small, where she marvels, “It made me feel tiny, like Thumbelina!” There’s the abruptness, seizing the joke (and Dee) before we have a chance to imagine what’s coming.

Kaitlin Olson, Charlie Day, Danny DeVito, Rob McElhenney, Glenn HowertonPhoto: Patrick McElhenney/FXX

And the thing is, that’s only the first great, lunatic surprise of “Time’s Up For The Gang,” as, in yet another classic example of Dennis Reynolds’ meticulous hyper-masculine madness, it’s finally revealed that the entire exercise—involving two professional moderators, a viral awareness campaign, a Bond villain-worthy PowerPoint presentation, and dozens of Philadelphia business owners dragged to the Hyatt—is all Dennis’ doing. Throughout the episode, we see each member of the Gang but Dennis having their own particular sexual creepiness brought out into the open, leaving them each, in turn, suddenly drenched in panic-sweat. Frank (who returns from a hasty call to his lawyer in a dry, inadequately belted bathrobe) has a long history of hiring attractive women, sleeping with them, and then promoting them to shut them up. (“It’s a win-win,” he protests, “Except for the wives.”) Mac’s embrace of his long-repressed homosexuality has left him finally expressing his lust for Dennis and other men in very unwanted handsiness. Charlie’s fifteen years of stalking the Waitress is thoroughly deconstructed by Dennis, not as the actions of a “hopeless romantic” that Charlie would have it be, but as those of “a sad, pathetic wretch of a man so desperate to be loved that [he’ll] actually go rifling through somebody’s garbage.” And Dee, it’s revealed, isn’t as off the hook as her head-nodding female smugness would have her be, since Charlie explains that their one sexual encounter had enough distressing consent issues to lead him to think of it as “molestation.” (Charlie’s still in deep denial about Uncle Jack, though, The Nightman Cometh notwithstanding.)

Advertisement

Charlie DayPhoto: Patrick McElhenney/FXX

Delivered with the maniacal precision of a supervillain, Dennis’ unveiling of his complex scheme is the culmination of the episode’s smartly subversive dissection of the issue at hand. I’ve said it before, but looking to Sunny for social commentary is a tricky proposition. For every feint toward flat-out pronouncements on cultural issues (gun control, abortion, racism, ableism, homophobia), It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia is, at its tarry black heart, a character study of human weakness. The Gang forms five points of the same Vonnegut-esque cartoon anus in their various embodiments of the bottom-scraping worst in all of us. So here, while there are passing shots at mens’ rights talking points and male panic about the Me Too movement (“I don’t know if you noticed but women are on a little bit of a rampage right now and anyone could be taken down at any moment,” lectures Dennis), the episode functions most eloquently in its takedown of the base self-interest that drags man-woman interactions down to the Philly mud. We don’t need Sunny to come out and say rape culture is insidious, that men have serious issues when it comes to women, and that Mac’s idea of the cosy coolness of “locker room talk” is self-justifying misogyny, because Sunny—for all its gleeful and skillful comic scandalousness—operates on the principle that basic human decency is a good thing.

But the Gang is us at our venal, cruel, human decency-eschewing worst. So when Frank’s old school, underling-banging behavior is aired out, or when Mac perks up when female moderator Kate gives way to Alan (“Oh, here comes the boss man.”), or when Charlie’s squirmy obsessions are shown to stem from incel-style male entitlement, or when Dee gloats while ignoring her own abuse of sexual power dynamics, their sweat-soaked comeuppance indicts the “just saying what everybody’s thinking” crowd without itself breaking a sweat. (Dennis’s presentation also trots out the whole “women only report ugly harassers” argument as part of his mission to include every rape-apologist cliché.) That’s what Sunny does at its best.

Advertisement

Glenn HowertonPhoto: Patrick McElhenney/FXX

As for Dennis—the Gang member most in need of this particular moral correction—the fact that he engineered the whole enterprise as part of his ongoing campaign to skirt the law while continuing to indulge his truly unsettling fetish for questionable consent play is a masterstroke worthy of the evil genius he is at such moments. When the rest of the Gang, outed by Dennis’ plan, object that Dennis has “Dennis-ed” more women than any of them, Dennis’ smug response comes wrapped in his layers of self-insulating preparation. As his culminating presentation goes on, Dennis reveals that he—unlike the rest of the Gang—keeps his life “tight,” complete with congratulatory and legally binding exonerating texts from his conquests. “Their phones did,” responds Dennis to objections that no woman would write a sexual partner that “I am saying YES to everything that happened last night,” Glenn Howerton expertly switching off whatever light exists behind Dennis Reynolds’ eyes. When Kate, informed that her well-intentioned expertise was merely a part of Dennis’ ploy to preemptively solidify alibis for his life of deception and abuse, shouts “You’re a monster,” Dennis Reynolds, tossing the PowerPoint remote aside in triumph, fixes her with a snakelike gaze and says, “Prove it.” It’s chilling, it’s masterful, and, as Charlie—anticipating the response of those all too willing to latch onto any powerful man’s excuses for accusations of sexual misconduct—puts it, “I gotta be honest, I didn’t follow most of it, but so cool, man.”

Stray observations

Frank to his lawyer, after his robe pops open in front of Kate: “How soon can you get to the Hyatt? My dong fell out.”

Mac defends his obsession with scoring points, rebutting, “Everything is graded by points, otherwise, how did the Eagles win the Super Bowl?”

Dennis’ intimate knowledge of pending statute of limitations laws and legal definitions of consent and harassment (he even knows who Carmita Wood is) recall nothing so much as how the manager of Alec Baldwin’s jailbait-chasing movie star in State And Main keeps a copy of statutory rape precedent in his car.

Another huge director-crafted laugh: After Alan rightly defines what Mac just did as actual sexual assault, Mac looks to Charlie for backup, only to see Charlie’s empty seat and the closing conference room door. Well done, Kat Coiro.

Dee uses Me Too paranoia to clear all of the men out of the buffet line.

Illustrating his “ugly men don’t get accused of harassment” point, Dennis flashes a picture of Cricket, punctuating the truly horrifying evidence of the Gang’s decades of abuse on the poor guy’s face by assuring his audience, “He was born this way.”

Advertisement

Source: https://tv.avclub.com/the-gang-confronts-me-too-in-one-of-the-most-explosivel-1829270618