opinions // no. 14 F.R.ILE.N.D.S. S.U.C.K.S. » I won't be there for you Jessica Berget Opinions Editor don't think there is anyone who knows more about Friends than I do. It was my favourite show growing up. I remember when Joey and Chandler played Fireball; when Ross said Rachel’s name at the alter; and when Rachel made the English trifle with ground beef. There’s no doubt that the show had a couple of good moments, but cmon, could it be any more overrated? Netflix recently spent $100 million dollars to keep the television show on their streaming site, which should be an indication of how popular the series is on their platform. It’s understandable that the show was huge in the ’gos and early 2000s, but I don’t understand why there are still so many people who actively enjoy it. First off, all of the jokes are outdated, which makes some scenes cringe-inducing to watch. Remember the jabs at Chandler's “cross-dressing” dad? Or the fat Monica jokes? The comedy on the show is also very shallow and predictable. You could give some different characters the same dialogue and it would all sound the same because the jokes aren't specific or special to the character. It’s like the writers of the show didn't write jokes for the character, rather just jokes for the characters to say. I find it also mostly focuses on melodrama more than story or character development, like who is kissing or sleeping with whom. It’s like a soap opera. Maybe they should have called it “Friends with Benefits.” Let’s set aside the fact that it’s a little problematic (almost any show would be when it’s 20 years old; it’s a product of its time). I find myself hard-pressed to find any well-written jokes, characters (besides Chandler), dialogue, or story in this sitcom. Friends is a terrible, superficial, long- winded show with an obnoxious laugh track. Moreover, Ross Geller has got to be the worst sitcom character to ever be produced. He’s creepy, possessive, jealous, whiny, and just plain annoying. He dated one of his students when he was a professor, and he even tried to have sex with his cousin. His character is enough to make me boycott the show entirely. Friends was my favourite show growing up and I’m not afraid to admit it has a lot of great moments. However, those moments are far and few between and they don't justify the entire show. Honestly, there are so many better sitcoms to watch out there that Friends is a waste of your time. You want a good, witty ’gos sitcom with lovable, well-written characters and a great story? Watch Frasier. Promotional image for 'Friends' Man . RS Fecate = aa What gets your goat? theotherpress.ca Photo of Led Zeppelin via Wikimedia Commons ul » People who claim ‘they don't make good music anymore’ Jessica Berget Opinions Editor Yr would think this is a rhetoric solely voiced by older people, but this is a claim that I hear from all ages. Young, old, 20-somethings, people of all demographics will post comparisons on Facebook of Justin Bieber and Freddie Mercury lyrics with the caption, “They just don’t make good music anymore.” First of all, chances are you weren't even alive when this God-sent “good music” came out. Second of all, there is good music out there, you just have to look for it. In 20 years, I’m sure people will be saying that this was the peak era of music, so you should try to appreciate it before you miss out. It’s 2019 and there has never been as much music in this world as there is right now. There is absolutely no excuse to say that they don’t make good music anymore; all you have to do is try to find it and be open-minded. I think people who make this claim are either too pretentious to try to listen to anything else, or they don't even try to find good music because they are stuck listening to the same bands and music as they always have. You're not going to find any good new music if you spend your whole time listening to Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones I get it, I don't like the music that most radio stations play or the top 40 hits either, but whatever music is popular on the radio certainly does not speak for all music. Ifyou seriously think that nobody makes good music anymore or “music died in 1973,’ you've got to get a grip. Maybe try discovering other bands that aren't from the ’60s or ’7os. The musical quality hasn't gotten any worse or any better. I don’t think it was even that great in the first place—it’s just the industry that’s changed. Musical genres evolve as time and generations pass, so obviously some people might not think it’s as good just because it’s different. Furthermore, there is some music from any given time period that really sucks, so I wouldn't call any era the peak time for music. If you still seriously think there’s no good music anymore, I encourage you to broaden your horizons. If you insist on listening to the same style of music, there are even many bands today that sound exactly like they came from the same time period as Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Try listening to Tame Impala, The Arctic Monkeys, MGMT—or just try to find your own music. Forced diversity 1s counterproductive » Filling a quota is not a good solution to underrepresentation Jessica Berget Opinions Editor epresentation is important; I think we can all agree on that. However, the approach with which our society has tried to obtain this has been controversial. Some think forced diversity through quotas in hiring is the only way to achieve diversity and minority representation. On the other hand, others believe that it only panders to the “left-wing agenda,” or it reduces marginalized people to being just trophies. While I can see how all these points are valid, I'm going to have to agree with the latter. Forced diversity is not true diversity because, as it says in the name, it’s forced. As important as it is to have fair and equal representation of all people, I don’t think giving people jobs on the basis of their background in an underrepresented group is the right way to go about it. People should be hired because they are the right fit for the job, not because some sort of inclusivity quota needs to be filled. To me, it seems counterproductive. By making diversity forced, it seems to me that people are being hired because they meet the qualifications and are a member of whatever group the quota requires, not necessarily because they are the best candidate for the job. I think that hiring them under these terms makes them atrophy minority character, and isn’t that a bit prejudiced? Putting people on display as a front for diversity seems a little backwards. Another example of forced diversity is gender quotas in a political workforce. l agree it sucks that there needs to be a quota at all, and this type of hiring is a solution that attempts to solve the problem, but I don’t think it’s the right solution. If it were me, I wouldn't want to feel as though I was hired fora 9 9 job only because they had to have a certain number of women—I would want it because I earned it and worked hard to get it. There needs to be equal opportunities for everyone to have a fair shot. Proponents may say that this type of hiring is a great idea because more diverse representation means that other ideas and beliefs can be represented as well. However, hiring people of different backgrounds does not necessarily mean that there will be a difference in values and beliefs. Say a woman is hired to fill the gender quota and because they want to include a womans perspective. However, she doesn’t automatically have different ideas just because she is a woman. She may have the exact same ones as the men who were already on board, so there’s no guarantee of any real difference in beliefs just because someone fulfills some quota criteria. Forced diversity may sound like a good idea at first, but it’s actually counterproductive when all is said and done. I believe that the only way to achieve true diversity is to not force it.