This connects to the part of the show when Gadsby spoke to the men in the audience specifically. I believe she was speaking about how she wasn't trying to aim the entire thing at them. A good chunk of the show included Gadsby's horrific experiences with men as well as how her gender has been mistaken as so, so it isn't very shocking to me that she was getting backlash from men. Just because Hannah was speaking out about her experiences with men, doesn't mean she was talking about every man, but the ones who didn't find it that funny were probably taking it that way.

What is an example of satire? I'm struggling to fully understand it. I thought it was more of a mockery, but it sounds a little different here, with somewhat of the same concept. What is a simpler definition of satire? Also, when specifically in her act did Gadsby use this?

Identification- self-deprecation I'm identifying self-deprecation as a key word because I feel that Gadsby's comedy style had (at least once) included a lot of this. It was really powerful when Gadsby spoke out about no longer wanting to partake in this self-deprecation for the entertainment of others. Self-deprecation in my own words means talking down on yourself & treating yourself poorly. I believe this is also key because this is where I felt her stand up really turned around & became more honest & raw rather than comedic, while still have a comedic stand.

I agree with this completely because it sounds like these aspects of the family are very true & real. Much of reality tv is rumored to be "rehearsed" & it's even mentioned in this essay, but it seems June was sincere in saying this & this is something that I'm sure viewers loved & respected because it makes her seem like an honest, care-free person.

I'm having trouble following what RTV means & what the function is. The article explained it, but I couldn't understand the point & what exactly this does. Does it teach the working-class to break away from some habits to seem more upper class?

Many reality tv shows are about high class people, such as The Kardashians & the Real Housewives shows, etc. Maybe people felt a connection to Honey Boo Boo because reality tv shows are often circled around the rich rather than working-class. Working-class is something many people can relate to & they probably felt a sense of pride seeing that television stars aren't just focused on wealthy people.

I found this to be really interesting, and kind of funny in a way. Politics are one of the top interests in this country, it's one of the things that (in my opinion) people often have the most to say about. When these national conventions occur, twitter as well as other social media news platforms erupt with throughout them with information, digs, & replays. It makes me wonder how the heck did Honey Boo Boo beat this?! I feel like most people have their guilty pleasure reality tv, so this one must have really had something about it that sucked viewers in.

Just to clarify; is this saying that within time people change & become aware of these changes? I feel like this is true in real life because the older we get the more we are accustomed to becoming fond of memories & often times we want to change for the better & we learn & grow the older that we get. Memories often have an effect on the way a person changes, for example some events, which leads to memories, may cause a person to experience something which changes them to be more conscientous, shy, more outgoing, etc.

I'm having trouble understanding what "types" exactly means & what their involvement is with stereotypes. Are there any similarities between these two, or maybe differences? Do types & stereotypes go hand in hand with one another?

I agree with the author. I feel like in a majority of the shows, movies, & books i've watched there is always a stereotypical character whether they are gay, suffering from mental illness, or are a person of color. In my opinion, this is why many people (especially from older generations) are so quick to stereotype & judge a person they simply pass on the street because of the way they talk or dress. Many people also stereotype due to the way they were raised through beliefs of their own families which they often learn from online research, or just gossip. Some people who are these "stereotypes" themselves even start to believe them or aspire to follow them in some cases.

I agree with the author, this does happen, but is it as meaningful as fans often take it as? When someone famous has an account, let alone multiple, it is often being managed by someone else. I'm unsure of why, but is this communication between groups truly genuine? A famous person is probably consistently getting bombarded with comments & messages, so I have a feeling that multiple people run the account so it never seems to decline.

I'm having trouble understanding what slippage means. When they mention the two characters dating in real life as well as on the show, it makes it seem like it's a publicity stunt to get more views. Is this what slippage basically means?

Connection- There has been hundreds of celebrities partaking in the social movements that have recently been coming to light; specifically the Black Lives Matter movement. many celebs, such as Keke Palmer & Halsey, have been using their platforms to speak out on the movemen. If you look at their instagrams, or the stories they post, it's been all about BLM & ways their fans could help like signing petitions, spreading word, etc. Other celebrities have become really involved in the issues of climate change (Zac Efron, Leonardo DiCaprio). Ashton Kutcher even saved 6,000 children from sex trafficking through his organization called Thorn. It's amazing the difference these celebrities could make when they choose to take action.

I found this fact to be really insightful. It made me think about the effect celebrities really do have when it comes to fundraising, philanthropies, etc. It makes me wonder if the celebrity hosting this is genuine though, or if it was something sprung onto them by someone at a higher power. I know that if I was younger & if a celebrity I liked, Justin Bieber for example, was raising money & I had the chance to meet him if I donated I probably would have put all the money I owned into it! It's amazing how much easier celebrities can raise money as oppose to (connection) when I try to do it for my sorority.

I have a recent connection to make. Recently, a co-star of Lea Michele came forward when Lea tweeted about BLM. Lea's co-star, Samantha Ware is a black actress, & she spoke about how Lea made her life a "living hell" (twitter). For her entire career, Lea had worked so hard to keep up this broadway star, successful actress image, just for it to get torn up in literal seconds from a single tweet calling her out. Obviously, this ties into the fact that we never know more than what is being presented to us about a celebrity, but there have been multiple cast members & others who have worked with Lea who found the courage to come forward once Samantha did. Until then, she had a pretty clear star image based on a number of articles & interviews. This connects to this sentence because her star image has since been changing. Some look at her in a negative view, some positive. Her image has been built on broadway, films, accusations, interviews, etc. Whatever the public has seen about her. that is the image that is being created.

I am a bit confused on what the author means at this moment. Is she talking about the roles the stars play? Many stars play the role of someone who is poor, but the star themself is not poor since they are famous, so how are stars embodiments of social categories unless she strictly is talking about through roles?

I agree with the idea that stars are a case of appearance because we really only know of them what is being presented to us. Many people may think they know a star based on the character they played on a TV show or based off of one interview they've seen. We constantly hear on news platforms when a celebrity does something bad in the public eye, or when they are wearing the wrong thing. In my opinion, us ordinary followers get presented the bad in celebrities more than the good, & it paints a picture of them in our minds despite the fact that we really don't know them as a person, yet we are convinced that we are. Similarly, with actual appearance, we often are believed to think that a celebrity looks a certain way when, in fact, they got something done to enhance features on themselves which we are taught to be normal (just to clarify it is totally okay for someone to do anything they want to their bodies! its theirs for a reason) but it makes many followers wonder why they don't have the same feature. We only see the outside of celebs, & what the media portrays them as.

I agree with the idea that stars are a case of appearance because we really only know of them what is being presented to us. Many people may think they know a star based on the character they played on a TV show or based off of one interview they've seen. We constantly hear on news platforms when a celebrity does something bad in the public eye, or when they are wearing the wrong thing. In my opinion, us ordinary followers get presented the bad in celebrities more than the good, & it paints a picture of them in our minds despite the fact that we really don't know them as a person, yet we are convinced that we are. Similarly, with actual appearance, we often are believed to think that a celebrity looks a certain way when, in fact, they got something done to enhance features on themselves which we are taught to be normal (just to clarify it is totally okay for someone to do anything they want to their bodies! its theirs for a reason) but it makes many followers wonder why they don't have the same feature. We only see the outside of celebs, & what the media portrays them as.

I found this to be incredibly insightful because some organizations are strict in the way that the beliefs between the person & the group must always be the same, for example many churches or religions won't approve of someones beliefs to change. To learn that there is a term for these society's who not only allow, but encourage a fluid membership is interesting because it allows for growth, learning what a person may like or not like, & it could help them find the place they belong. I could understand an argument against fluid society & for it, but overall I think the term itself is important to know, especially in today's day & age.

The term "fan-based citizenship" is new to me. I'm having trouble understanding exactly what this means. Through the offers explanation, I could only assume that this is a negative term, but if someone could further clarify that would help me understand why exactly this is negative, or if i misunderstood, why this term means what it does.

In this specific section, I don't necessarily agree with what Weiss has stated. Fantasy, in my own opinion, is all about escaping from the real world, our world. Fantasy is even defined, according to Oxford Dictionaries, as "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable". Fantasy is such a pleasure to experience, & I think it's healthy for every person to have their own fantasy, but the whole reason behind that is because it's an escape. It is great that young people get encouraged by these heroes, but it's important that they don't get disassociated with reality either.