Sorry, but you’re wrong. They are entertainment… and commentary… and a reflection of who we are and what we value and what we believe at a given point in time. To what we deem acceptable and to what we tolerate.

As such, it’s reasonable to discuss them and their social implications. And — surprise, surprise — it’s even possible to discuss those shortcomings without implying or suggesting that they be cancelled or banned.

Someone above mentioned All In The Family, an imensely popular and groundbreaking show, which spent its entire lifetime poking fun at Archie Bunker and his innate bigotry. It sent a message.

Contrast this with Friends, which went almost an entire decade detailing the antics of a group of friends… without a single non-white “friend” to be seen. And in New York City, of all places. Such things send a message too.

Was it a requirement that they be inclusive? Nope. Show runners can do what they want. But their absence was noted by many, and, as we’ve seen here, is a point worthy of comment. And even criticism.

Moving on, I find it funny that you responded to a comment where I explicitly called out Nada’s use of a label… by immediately using one of your own. But I should point out that resorting to a label says much, much more about the person who used it that it does about the individual against whom it was thrown.

(And besides, I’ve never really understood that particular insult. I mean, who is legitimately against social justice?)

Finally, and to paraphrase, if you’re so sensitive to even the suggestion of anything critical to your cherished personal beliefs… then perhaps you shouldn’t read them.

Being overly sensitive, it appears, plays both ways.

Got to get to my day job.