Logan, I respect that you are so nonjudgmental, because it means that you can engage people in ways that draw them out without making them feel self-conscious. THAT SAID, this dude is frustrating for reasons that have mostly already been outlined in other comments. But I also notice that he doesn't mention charitable giving or volunteer work of any sort. I mean, people are entitled to spend their money and time however they want, plus it sounds like this guy's too afraid of going broke any day now anyway, but it seems like it could do a lot for his sense of perspective. Right now he only compares himself to other rich doctors and to his rich neighbors, who all seem to share a similar habit of conflating luxuries with necessities that therefore allows them to believe that they are barely getting by and hardly indulging at all. Even the way he talks about his upbringing and young adulthood seems clouded by a lack of exposure to other people who weren't as privileged he was (which is why he says things like, "my parents paid for college but it wasn't expensive" and "I spent a year traveling on my parents' dime" with no sense of what markers of wealth those things were and are). But what's really frustrating/annoying is the idea that being "rich" means being immune from worry and responsibility. There is a lot wrong with that, but most strikingly it's the failure to acknowledge the difference between worrying (about retirement, college, etc) and planning. Those things are not the same.
I can't tell if it's a sign of a good voice actor that I don't associate the Hulu Voice with an actual person, or a sign that I'm just really dumb because what else would it belong to if not a person.
@Dancercise Oh, what you said (which I was typing while you were posting).
Instead of the police, can you visit some of the jewelers nearby to see if the ring matches anything they've recently sold, cleaned, or re-sized? I mean, it's a lot of work for you but the fact that you say you work near the jewelers should do more than explain why you found it -- perhaps it could lead you to the owner!
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, if I gave my friend a generous gift only to have said friend ask WHY I was so generous I would demand they return the gift. I mean, haven't I already done enough? Why make me justify my choices? I think when real friends are really generous (and I'm using "real" intentionally here to step aside issues of ulterior motives), it should go without saying that it's because they a.) feel comfortable with the level of generosity they've chosen, and b.) really want you to enjoy the gift. I don't think you get anywhere probing things beyond that. Just enjoy the gift and be as gracious (effusive, even) as possible in thanking them. On the other hand, having read this site for awhile, I could see being concerned if that generous friend felt like he/she "had" to be generous, whether he/she could afford it or not. But I'd still make it about more general issues - "do you feel like you have to go all out for your friends?" - and bring it up in a different context. Bottom line: use the gift, enjoy it, thank your friend, and try to be as good a friend as the one you have.
I love how “my landlord was racist and would only rent to white people,” is there just for narrative detail, because it obviously didn’t stop the writer from living there for a significant period of time. Plus, there is something about not questioning why it's possible to benefit from whiteness AND from diversity (thank god the Punjabi market people didn’t have racist landlords or our narrator here wouldn’t have gotten her fix!) that is kind of stunning, actually.
What is it about old ladies and their luck? My grandma was into scratch offs and slot machines, but the latter was where she really had her fun. We have SEVERAL official casino photos of her posed in front of a slot machine (or what we liked to call "grandma's bank") after a big payout.
Hmm. I am starting to think that the editorial direction has guided the direction of the comment section, in that all the attention to Logan's challenges (which she is always 100% honest about) has created an environment in which people feel REALLY free to snark on her. It's a weird dynamic, and one in which I think that Mike is sometimes all too complicit. I'm not saying Logan is a victim here, but I do think that the site veers too hard and too often in the Logan Is a Mess direction. Like, the discussion opens with Logan talking about a series of mishaps related to her computer and boots. Those are both money related, but it wasn't enough somehow, so Mike had to remind her that she had other, "bigger" problems. Which then opens her up to being judged for how she's getting around them (even for finding an alternate route home which, while not a choice everyone would make, has worked for her). It's just so weird to me how comfortable everyone is with this, and makes me wonder what she needs to do to generate a different level of discussion. Like, should she liveblog her sessions with a therapist on top of it all so we feel like she's addressing her issues to our satisfaction? I just feel like Logan the person has to play Logan the character on this site so everyone, including Mike, can play their roles. But it is getting stale. Besides, I'd be interested in hearing what motivates some of Mike's choices, too. Like going to bed at 10pm every weeknight? Taking lunch to work every single day? I'm honestly not judging, just listing examples of things that show how he seems to have an interesting - and heretofore unexplored - level of rigidity in his life. It's an interesting counterpoint to Logan's, but we only ever explore Logan's stuff, and mostly only because everyone seems to want to see her fixed.
It's funny when our lives intersect (even tangentially) with those of the PIL writers. I went to a party on your block on Baltimore the spring before you moved in.
Logan, I can abide a lot but your blind love for Lena Dunham is really testing me. Unless you want people to think that you agree that every person critical of her and her show (for her/its treatment of characters of color as marginal figures at best, for her limp justifications of her choices, et cetera) is just a hater. Because that would mean that you're pretty much saying you want to be the very personification of the stereotypical millenial who equates any kind of non-fawning feedback with jealousy. And I even like her show! The point is that it's possible to like it AND agree that she's got her faults WHILE ALSO agreeing that people are sexist in their treatment of her.