I wrote a blog post that, according to news sources, "slammed" Full House. Thankfully, John Stamos -- Uncle Jesse himself! -- was quick to "refute" my claims that '90s TV created unrealistic expectations among members of my generation. He and thousands of his closest Facebook friends defended the sanctity of Full House and dispelled my blasphemy.
My first reaction was surprise because I didn't know that John Stamos was still a media presence. I called my mom and she informed me, "Oh yes. He does Greek yogurt commercials now, which makes sense because he is Greek and handsome."
My second reaction was fear, because it turns out there are thousands of Full House zealots. They could start a cult or a small army, or maybe they already have.
My third reaction was gratitude. Thank you John and friends. I applaud you for advocating wholesome programming and shaming me, a cynic and obvious failure-at-life.
But why stop there? To the same degree that I "slammed" Full House, I potentially offended a lot of people and things. Let's dissect my blog post and see what other incendiary subtexts we can uncover.
[For those of you who do not perceive or understand satire: the following is hyperbole, over-the-top exaggeration, which in this case is used to make the point that Internet trolling, hypersensitive Americans will be outraged by nearly anything you say or print.]
1) "I was in front of the TV, with a sleeve of Oreos." By referencing the uncontested front-runner of cream-filled chocolate sandwich cookies, am I not promoting merciless monopolistic business practices? What about Hydrox? What about Newman's Own? I'm clearly a brandist and a capitalist.
2) An anecdote about how my brother stole my Chex Mix when we were kids. This could be offensive to people with a gluten allergy.
3) "I can live in a window-less, "garden level" closet with a kleptomaniac and an Ultimate Frisbee player." This implies that kleptomaniacs and Ultimate Frisbee Players are equally distasteful categories of roommate. I should apologize to kleptomaniacs.
4) "It's not like an omniscient being -- God disguised as a pizza deliveryman -- would manifest." Why one God? Why pizza deliveryman? I must be a sexist and a monotheist. Or maybe an atheist because I seem dubious over God's ability to miraculously manifest and provide faith.
5) "My friend Veronica actually did meet her husband because he lived across from her... hut in Turkmenistan." I presented an ignorant, first world perception of Turkmenistan. Veronica and Matt did not live in huts. They lived in yurt-like dwellings, which are totally different from huts.
6) "Eventually we want to emerge from our love den and get the latest issue of the New Yorker. We want to go for a bike ride." By framing bicycle riding and New Yorker reading as universal human desires, I exclude people who are in comas as well as people who just don't like riding bikes.
7) "If you're crying more than laughing, maybe you should check out this great meatball restaurant!" I suggest eating meatballs as a remedy for discontent and do not provide raw-foodist, vegan friendly alternatives. I clearly want raw food vegans to suffer depression and starve.
If you look closely and dissect statements out of context, you can find reasons for uproar everywhere! It's so fun and easy! I could go on and on with this exercise, but why belabor a point that will certainly be lost on the people for whom it's intended?