“But are they any good?” I have to read in Andy Daly’s voice, from Review.
Oh my god that is one of the greatest shows in history. They actually came out with a 3rd season which was a whole… Wait for it… THREE episodes. What a ripoff.
The Andy Daly Pilot Project Podcast is one of my favorite things in comedy ever. If you are a fan of his, seek it out. There were only about eight episodes but it was hilarious for its short run.
On topic: another article in which a panel of writers attempt to come off as above-it-all and world weary by making the same tired jokes about the name of the product and the same trite observation that food should always be the way that they are used to it being, forever amen. Just the thought of drinking a complete and nutritious meal makes one “incredibly sad,” as if she were “snuffing out a small joy.” Puh-lease.
Fight it all you want, the future doesn’t care.
It makes me think that the writer is very bored with her job. I’ve been there sometimes, when lunch is literally the only bright spot in the workday.
Yeah, I understand that, but the writer’s job is to write, and if so much joy has been sucked out of her job that she can’t do it objectively and without resorting to childish insults then she really needs to take a step back and reevaluate. When a writer reviews a product or service, she is directly impacting the business in question and the lives of the people who are depending on her professionalism. She is hurting everyone by not living up to the standards that her job requires. If your life sucks, don’t take it out on people who are trying to do a good thing or the people who might benefit from that good thing.
Think of the American trial court system. Where we have the concept of “a jury of your peers”. That is a fitting analogy for this kind of article.
As an analogy to jurors in a court room trial, the writer’s and the panelists in the video’s job is to represent the level-headed, impartial majority of the people. People that have never tried Soylent before.
Those here that are offended by the article sound like they want to have a jury made up entirely of serial killers to sit in a trial of a fellow serial killer.
People are always belly-aching about, “Pfft! So-and-so’s negative critique of Soylent is not a legitimate review, because she never even tasted it for herself!”.
Well here you have a writer who has actually tasted it for herself. And she’s also filmed the responses of a four-person “jury” who also tasted it for themselves. None of whom ever pans it that mercilessly in my opinion. Yet you people still get all defensive!?!?
I get that it’s human nature to want to only ever live in a perpetual circle jerk. But come on! This latching on to the writer’s tongue-in-cheek joke about feeling “incredibly sad” at lunch time as your only rebuttal, just makes you sound petty. And desperate. And, frankly, incredibly sad!
I mean… Not a terrible idea. If anyone knows a serial killer, it’d be a serial killer. Self obsession is kinda their thing. And it’s not like they have much motivation to find the guy innocent. If anything it would distract from their own crimes.
Although… Im not sure what im getting at because I agree with your overall point. Soylent needs to be reviewed by a “control” group too, and often. Ill admit its almost fun trying to guess the typical reactions people have
The same hilarious jokes get made over… and over… and over. If I came off as sad or circle jerky to you then I guess you didn’t read what I said about a writer’s duty to actually, you know, inform her readers, even at the expense of not coming across as a failed stand-up comedienne, and also how she should take into account how both her readers and the makers of the products under review will be helped or hindered but what she says.
If you honestly took any of the negative comments as “jokes,” then she obviously was more interested in being clever than informative. Also, that wasn’t even close to my “only rebuttal.” Read for comprehension. It adds so much to the conversation.