Some theories I've seen:
Britney's New Look, a 2008 South Park episode, is widely recognized as being ahead of the curve in its take on Britney: instead of taking cheap shots at her, which was the default in the 2000s, it brutally and unfilteredly depicted how, despite Britney being obviously unwell, the media and the public kept devouring her pain and suffering as entertainment.
However, it's now more than a decade past 2008, and I'm curious about what a follow-up episode to Britney's New Look would be like. I imagine that it would be something like The Worldwide Privacy Tour (pointing out how Britney claims to hate the media attention and the paparazzi, but she can't stop the bizarre attention seeking behavior on Instagram and in public places), along with satirizing the parasocial delusions of stans who think they know what's best for Britney and the constant excuses and rationalizations they make for her being a danger to herself and to others.
Considering how South Park was one of the few media willing to go against the grain of the excessive Britney hate in 2008, I think that, if a follow-up episode to Britney's New Look were made today, Trey Parker and Matt Stone would also be willing to go against the grain of the "Britney is a innocent uwu victim who can do no wrong" narrative that dominates nowadays.
I'm shocked that it was produced by the NY Times, the US's newspaper of record. You would have expected something far more comprehensively researched.
The documentary does the same old framing of Britney as an innocent uwu perpetual victim, engages in gratuitous Justin Timberlake bashing, and completely brushes over how severe her issues were before the conservatorship (it made it sound like Britney had a bad day, shaved her head, and got put in a conservatorship for no reason).
I saw this tweet yesterday saying that Trump is now a lame duck president despite having GOP majorities in both the House and the Senate because he managed to alienate significant numbers of Republican Senators (most recently, endorsing Paxton over Cornyn) and Congresspeople.
Another example of a president who struggled with getting much of his agenda done despite having majorities in both houses of Congress that I can think of is Jimmy Carter, who had notoriously strained relationships with Democrats in the House and the Senate (note: I am not equivalating Trump and Carter in any way).
In contrast, Joe Biden was able to leverage the relationships he built with Congress over decades to pass several important pieces of legislation, including the American Rescue Plan Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
So, when discussing who we want to be the Democratic nominee for 2028, should we be considering whether they have the skills to work with Congress so they can get their agenda passed and implemented? If so, who among the Dems who might run in 2028 do you think would be effective in working with Congress to get their agenda passed?
Feel free to also name other examples of presidents who benefited from good working relationships with Congress/examples of presidents who were held back because of poor or strained relationships with Congress
If so, how accurate do you think its thesis is: a nation's prosperity is determined by its political and economic institutions, not geography, culture, or climate. The authors assert that inclusive institutions, which protect property rights and encourage broad participation, lead to success, while extractive institutions, which enrich a small elite, cause failure.
If you read it and disagreed with the thesis, please say why
I’ve heard stans say that Britney, early in her career, could sing very well, close to Christina Aguilera’s level of vocal skill; but then her record label forced her to do the baby voice, suppressing and ruining her natural vocal talent.
It sounds like another instance of stans painting her as a perpetual victim of everyone and everything.
There is precedent for this
So, are there any current deep red state Republican governors who are so awful that there is a possibility that voters who nearly always vote GOP will be willing to give a Dem governor a chance?
Some examples (including but not limited to):
I know that people joke about MS ranking last or close to last on pretty much every metric (ie "Thank God for Mississippi"), but I don't think I've ever seen any Dem politicians rhetorically say that voting Republican will turn your city, state, the county, etc. into Mississippi. Meanwhile, GOPers constantly reference California to fearmonger about liberal policies.
For example, Ron DeSantis, John Fetterman, Jared Polis all need to go touch grass
Definitions:
Disclaimer: this is a comment I found on the r/justintimberlake subreddit, so it's not my original work
"I've had a lot of time to think about this whole Britney thing, and I think I may have finally come to the conclusion as to why so many of her stans hate JT so much.
They probably believe if Britney and Justin had gotten married, her life would've never fallen apart like it did. Justin's family would've been her new surrogate family. *NSYNC would've been like brothers to her and protected her more than her actual siblings did. The wedding between Britney and Justin would've been like a Disney movie, and her life would've ended up like a fairy tale.
Since none of this ended up happening, they take their anger out on Justin more than they do the real villians in her life."
For example, vacancy trutherism, which posits that there is no housing crisis in the country because there are so many more vacant housing units in the US than homeless people, so let's just give give a vacant unit to every homeless person and voila.
How do we make sure that progressive candidates won't become turncoats?
Other than making sure candidates are not at risk of having strokes (got to get that out of the way to make room for serious answers)
Yes, you can say Polis but bonus points if you name someone else and explain why
A common refrain from Britney stans is that "Kanye West/Justin Bieber/Robert Downey Jr./whatever other troubled male celebrity didn't get put in a conservatorship".
What are some rebuttals you would use to that way of arguing that the conservatorship was unnecessary?
We all know how awful Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas are.
Now, let's shine a light on GOP governors that are as bad as or even worse than them but don't get much scrutiny because they don't have much of a national profile. Please give details about why they deserve to get more shit.
Recap: Barack Obama won Florida twice. Donald Trump narrowly won Florida in 2016. In 2018, Ron DeSantis won the FL gubernatorial election by a razor thin margin of 0.4% (34,000 votes).
Yet, as of 2026, Florida is basically a safe red state and most Democrats have written it off.
I'm curious about what exactly caused this quintessential swing state to become a deep red state in less than a decade.
Some theories I've heard include:
My guess is that (ironically, considering their talking points in our timeline) they would be attacking her family and/or the authorities for being neglectful and not doing anything to save her.
See title for question