/lit/ - Literature

God forbid she actually be happy, eh?

>>14037178
if you aren't american you deserve better

>>14037178
Heh. Girl's really like rewatching that show. I watched it one time through. I don't feel the need to watch it again really...

That being said, I've watched through shows multiple times over again. Breaking Bad I've seen like 4 times through. I'm sure some people think it's an absurd waste of time. It is in some ways, but every story changes everytime you experience it. Re-reading a book at a different stage of life is crucial!
Let her enjoy the things she likes, but maybe try to see if she likes books in the first place. Ask her about books she had to read in school and whether she likes them. If you like books, plan a fun date with her. That's how I got my girl into books again. One time we were hanging out and not doing much so I went "hey, I need to run an errand, come tag along." and I showed her some great local books stores. Sure enough she came out of there with 4-5 books!
And of course you have the holidays coming up. Maybe buy her a book as a gift. Something that is pretty Normie but a good introductory that you'll know she'll enjoy.

You can't do anything about this.
If people choose the watch the office unironically you must abandon all hope.

>stop liking what I don’t like

Maybe she wonders why you waste your time on some dry, boring old books.

>>14037257
Yes she does. That’s the point of this thread. Help me /lit/

>>14037178
Next time she asks you to do her a favor reply, "William Doolittle at your service, aka Will Do."

How do you even do that with an American show? I understand rewatching Blackadder or Fawlty Towers or the UK Office or even Peep Show over and over again, but how does anyone have the time to watch Breaking Bad or The Wire or the US Office multiple times? It took me nearly two years to watch The Wire.

I tried watching this show and it become super apparent to me that women get off on the social dynamics and the office politics of fear and embarrassment. The central conflict revolves around an engaged women plotting an affair with a white collar coworker who is slightly less intolerably pathetic than her boorish bluecollar fiance. Although the most interesting character is played by Steve Carroll, a man of intense contempt for the tedious hierarchical office system who works tirelessly to save his employees from boredom and downsizing, but is believed by the women who watch this, to be a clownish male asshole. The urban workplace domestic fantasy is meant to reinforce women's convictions that they are intune with social norms while men are ridiculous pompous assholes, while advancing the hope that someday love will save them. It's incredibly pathetic but also a very misunderstood show. It's also so boring as to represent background noise more or less.

>>14037295
Steve Carroll's character is a social inept moron though, and he's not viewed in a negative light. Half the time you're suppose to feel positively towards his character instead of negatively.
And yes, the Jim / Pam romance stuff is really really fucked. The show never really punishes either and always portrays them positively or at least neutrally.

>>14037295
I think people like it because it's just a very lighthearted show. All the conflicts aren't that serious and wrap up in the end. People like that.

>>14037360
>Steve Carroll's character is a social inept moron though

He's actually not at all. You're meant to superficially believe he is, when in fact he's a brilliant commander and humorist who successfully molds his and leads his workers for ten seasons despite violating every conceivable rule of office protocol and decorum. I know women watch this and think, "oh my, what an offensive clueless buffoon" but that is exactly women's idiotic attitude to social norms, which for them are written in granite and rule their entire lives. The show constantly emphasizes this by showing closeups of people "not getting" Steve Carell's brilliant satire, and acting cowardly and embarrassed about their genius leader who they are so degraded and powerless in comparison to that they can only fantasize about having affairs with eachother. I wish death to tedious bourgeois characters except Steve Carell whose utter contempt for the dead hand of female social mores I would follow into the abyss.

I watched once, it was funny. Probably gonna rewatch next decade or so, when i forget all the jokes.

>>14037295
>>14037409
This

>>14037360
faggots like you over analysing a lighthearted show should be shot

>>14037178
lol the office is exactly what women read: stories about cuckoldry and some beta cuck dying to be there for a who sees herself as a qt shy girl and thinks that 'downtown abbey is life'' like pam says

>>14037409
Holy based

I saw it once and liked it, but that was 5 years ago. Now I don't like it as much.

>>14037178
I liked this show in middle school, back when I was like 13-14. When I got into high school and college, all the normies started watching it and it became unbearable to see how something I enjoyed as a stupid undeveloped middle schooler came to be enjoyed en masse by all these whores and retards. It was pretty redpilling to realize how immature and dumb people were. The show entertained me as a child but now that I'm older I started to subtly notice how bad it was, esp. Jim. I knew a guy who liked the office and his love life was ruined by Jim. Jim is that shy, kinda quirky guy, nothing offensive or off-putting about him, just so fucking normal and bland, and yet he gets the girl. In real life, THIS NEVER HAPPENS. So I know a guy who has been trying to get with girls for years by literally acting like Jim, exactly like him, it's embarrassing. Anyways, he has been cucked an innumerable amount of times, but he never stops with the whole nice guy shit. The nice guy doesn't get the fucking girl. The show is so dumb. Jim is also like 6'3 or something, decent-ish frame, meanwhile all the guys who larp as Jim irl are feminine manlets. Don't they fucking know that if Jim was 5'7 HE WOULD STAND NO CHANCE WITH PAM. Anyways, Roy was cooler than Jim even than he was boorish, fact is that he sensed he had to alpha up on Jim since Jim was subtly cucking him, which was as unbelievable to us as it is to him, since Jim is a phaggot nice guy retard. The episode where Dwight BTFO's Roy is so embarrassing, femoids would LOVE it if autists could white knight them like that but irl Roy would've crushed Jim, which would've aroused Pam intensely, and after spending the night in jail he come home to pound Pam's pussy like 12 times in a row, and then she'd shadow block Jim and ignore him, making it real awkward and Jim would just give up and move to a diff company. Show is unrealistic. Nice guy don't win and the show gave so many nice guys hope LMAOOOOO too bad irl they just get wrecked by roastie whores over and over lmao

>>14037191
read macintyre's after virtue

>>14037560
The character Jim is based on was 5'7" and he got the girl. Though he had more personality than Jim.

>>14037295
Is this pasta? I enjoyed reading it very much

>>14037560
The
>i got repilled then everything makes sense
Story

>>14037577
Of course
British women are fucking ugly

>>14037560
Jim is actually a lazy patriarchal fascist hell bent on destroying Dunder Mifflin. if you read Silvia Plath he's the embodiment of her poem Daddy:

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48999/daddy-56d22aafa45b2

His entire life revolves around towering over Pam at her secretary's desk while she stares longingly into his eyes and they dream about numerous infidelities in their secret forbidden lust garden of the mind. They joke about how better their lives would be without their terrible office jobs, which they consider intolerable wastes of time. Meanwhile, Jim terrorizes the other employees, does no actual work, routinely frustrates the efforts of his coworkers, apparently has no life or friends of his own outside of work, dominates the only attractive female, generally sows discord and division, and yet is portrayed as the show's protagonist.

>>14037627
Actually gives me hope in life desu

>>14037627
Who's the good guy? Creed, Toby, Dwight, Kevin? WHO IS THE GOOD GUY

>>14037627
This show is for imaginationlets that can't read more in depth fiction or novels with a more complex plot so they stick with the show that has a main pair of normalfags surrounded by wacky coworkers and a wrench in the clockwork of a boss so that it isn't too boring but not too realistic. It is the lukewarm safe bet of entertainments.

>>14037409
i do enjoy the "wise fool" take on Michael Scott, but it tends to overlook the wider social dynamics within hierarchical institutions that The Office pessimistically admits to. whether Ricky Gervais ever originally intended to make these points may be irrelevant. i believe that in adapting a sitcom for American audiences, the writers unknowingly created an effective map of social exchanges within not just offices, but every institution that is large enough to involve unseen motives that are often relegated to the backdrops of self-redeeming narratives.

the wise clown take elevates Michael's antics to heroics, but this is inevitably just surplus production energy that is efficiently captured by Dunder Mifflin's management (the Scranton branch, in spite of their asinine outward appearance, regularly outperforms other branches and even survives layoffs and re-orgs). he is wise in a stoic sense, the way a slave would live a full life in spite of their condition, but he's a slave nonetheless - middle management fodder in a company facing extinction within the dying paper industry. his slavery runs deep enough that he never asked for a raise in the whole duration of his career in the company. in his sincerity, i do believe he offers a workable example of being free in spite of slavery.

i would take your seething misogynistic interpretation with a healthy grain of salt though. the universality and seeming permanence of social mores are hardly things that women alone bear the blame for reproducing. and castigating an imagined audience is the lowest way of speaking about any text.

>>14037544

>>14037178
She has mental issues. The only time I binge watch shows is when I'm depressed.

>>14037770
The office is a popular show because it functions as a means of ideological socialisation,teaching the viewer how to function in an absurd post industrial workplace. The gentle 'cringe comedy' serves as a palliative for the humilliation of the proletarianised white collar worker, the mounting sense of horror at the futility of the rationalistic project of modernity. What media can I consume in order to maximise my sense of alienation?

>>14037779
By reproducing the social hierarchies the show fundamentally solidifies and normalizes them, while simultaneously undermining the decency of real labour by satirizing it.

The employees of white collar firms are of course interchangeable atomized resources, human capital, and I agree the show does heroicize the employees by virtue of the medium being television. Their sustained success as a firm despite the guillotine of constant layoffs is more existential than stoical though, as they create meaning through their struggle which they do not simply bare. We can see that they ARE in fact happy in their suicidally tedious meaningless jobs. They are now cultural archetypes, as you correctly point out. Unfortunately the end result of this is still to reproduce the power values of corporate capitalism which are obedience, subservience, treachery, cowardice and degradation.

Michael Scott's importance is that he tears these values to ribbons, reminding the employees in universe that they should never accept their slavery with complacency. If their lives were intolerable they would leave the firm, yet never do.

The OPs thesis is that his girlfriend watches the show religiously, and that needs to be explained if taken as prima facie

>>14037789
>The only time I binge watch shows is when I'm depressed.
faggot lmao

>>14037627
Damn didnt realize how BASED jim was

>>14037789
I am exactly the same. And always sitcoms too. Office, Seinfeld, Sunny.

>>14037295
Jim was the worst. Everything wrong about how milennials idolize irony. Michael was the only sincere person in that office.

>>14037904
interestingly though, your analysis is still ultimately within the limits of the corporate theater. the focus on heroism is still subsumed in The Office' narrative, and does not overcome it. it accepts the form of the argument that slavery is a given condition, and that there are only two choices between placidly accepting your place and actively refusing to be decided by it.

if we take my analogy that heroism is but a narrative device within a corporate theater, then who is pulling the strings? these people are not slaves, nor heroes and thus subtract the full weight of your conclusion. there is a third option, another archetype that your analysis misses in its focus on an existentialism that can only take organizational suffering as a fixed given. not the middle manager or staff and line, but the upstart VP and the C-suite executive. their lives are not defined by suffering and thus do not require redemptive narratives. they essentially offer alternative value systems to either happiness or complacency.

while a quick glance would just relegate them to the usual powermonger, they carry the ingredients to overman that your analysis simply cannot contain as it is entirely a slave morality, even at its highest form. David Wallace, Jan Levinson, even Ryan for a brief moment - all manage to exist outside of the prison narrative that your analysis leaves you stuck in. and while i just recently criticized you for focusing on the audience of a text and not the text itself, that this reading was unavailable to you is likely from the larger symptom of being stuck in a desert and worshiping the thirst.

scapegoating women makes more sense as a release valve from what could only seem to be a pathological system they unwittingly reproduce. while i don't entirely disagree with the point on women, i find that any attention paid towards a hated group only calcifies an existing understanding that leaves more fertile paths closed. it's just wasted energy better suited to a fanatic mode of action rather than thinking. better to have an enemy when we've decided to do something, than when we're still in the deciding.

>>14037178
What everyone seems to miss is how big an influence pic related was on the American Office:
>Michael Schur, one of the main writers (who also co-created Parks & Rec, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and The Good Place), wrote his undergrad thesis on Infinite Jest and owns the film rights
>The owner of Dunder Mifflin's name? David Wallace
>John Krasinski directed and starred in the 2009 film adaptation of Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

>>14038116
good find. i haven't read DFW, but how does this affect the way The Office could be understood? refusing irony and instead taking sincerity as the appropriate response?

>>14038145
I do recall in the finale Jim had a line about how even though he never really took his job seriously and thought it was pointless for years, he realized how it was responsible for all the meaningful relationships in his life, and made it possible for him to grow up and start a family. Something like that. Which seems in line with The Pale King

>>14038116
this explains why DFW and the office make me feel the same visceral sense of disgust.

>>14038116
shit
the office is just the comedy version of the pale king

>>14038115
It would be impossible for (fictional) television shows to not be theatre.

I agree the characters (and possibly the actors as well) are slaves in the context of the show, as of course they cannot escape the confines of the show, despite all the fourth wall breaking "ironically looking at the camera" that happens. However, if we take the show at face value, the characters (presumably autonomous human beings) are clearly satisfied with their conditions and those conditions are not intolerable. They literally are not slaves, and even the figurative sense is questionable.

I think ultimately the viewer of the show is impressed by the TV heroics and ends up wishing their life were as wacky yet impermeable as the TV office. Nobody who watches the show religiously could fail to feel compelled by the show's heroic portrayal of capitalism.

My criticism is perfectly fine, and you're only writing with an oppositional framework because you've been trained in your undergraduate English department to do this, so who is the real victim of slave morality?

>>14038058
Based

>>14037236
Your life makes me want to kill myself because I don’t have it

>>14037560
Nice blog retard

>>14038366
thanks

>>14038215
>the characters are clearly satisfied
their satisfaction isn't fixed - it's dynamic. the point is that it's a well-oiled process that is taken advantage of, similar to ATP phosphorylation or any other stepwise function that makes use of pre-existing forces. every moment where the characters bicker and vie for recognition is another step in the leveling process that takes the surplus of their search for meaning and allows them the energy to clock in another day at the office. the more valiantly they struggle, the more value is extracted. Michael is a great leader for exactly this motive and the Scranton branch does well exactly for those reasons.

>and you're only writing with an oppositional framework because you've been trained in your undergraduate English department to do this
as a third-worlder with a second-rate degree, this attempt to diminish what is already lacking pleases me greatly. i feel that i've done well with the efforts in my argument, and hope that my previous reply wasn't read as an attack but more as a challenge.

much as i've attempted to be faithful to the text, my concern is ultimately to be found in the practical affairs of my own employment - the group dynamics of which your analysis fits in well with, but still only as something to work around, transform, and extract for myself. i don't say this with smug satisfaction - it's absolutely exhausting to live without any available wellspring of meaning. but i must say that there's more in it than replaying the tired old narratives of people who want to cope with their condition, though that alone is no sound criticism of your points.

if my view is correct, you yourself only perpetuate the corporate body by fighting within it. ultimately, that is the nail in the coffin you'll have to remove if you're to soundly refute what i've detailed. otherwise, it stands that your Michael is a simple fool at worst and a tragic hero at best, rather than the wise leader you make him out to be.

finally, if you'd like to explore it yourself, i've been arguing with you mostly as a chance to exercise my own understanding and possibly even have it overturned. i've been parroting this series of essays the whole time. perhaps you may find nothing from it, but it's done me well: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/

>>14037491
What does it mean?

>>14037577
no he didn't, in the uk finale she turned him down and it was brilliant. it was only in the shitty Christmas special that they retroactively gave people a happy ending. Gervais is a cuck for giving in.

>if my view is correct...

>i've been parroting this series of essays the whole time...

Presumably your self confessed third world second rate education has caused you to misconstrue parroting with developing, certainly it cannot be YOUR view if you're merely reproducing it without any thought.

>Michael is a great leader for exactly this motive and the Scranton branch does well exactly for those reasons.

>it stands that your Michael is a simple fool at worst and a tragic hero at best, rather than the wise leader you make him out to be.

These are contradictory statements.

>>14037178
Don't worry OP, they're removing the Office from Netflix soon :)

You guys are overthinking it. The Office is just about the powerlessness of modern life. Employees of Dunder Mifflin are stuck at meaningless jobs, engaged in meaningless social contact with people they have no real connection to. The character of Michael is the exception that proves the rule: his radical desire to form genuine emotional connections with his employees is insane and always unrequited. Michael desperately hunts for meaning and connection where there is none. Dwight is an exploration of the same character-type, but in his relationship to his work itself. He's radically attached to a meaningless job, and that radical attachment is meant to illuminate exactly how purposeless and powerless this job really is.

Jim by contrast with both is aloof and disconnected, both to his job and the people around them. His associations with other people are dictated by his ironic detachment from them. He is the most powerful character on the show, because he doesn't pretend that his world has meaning.

The writers gave him a sincere relationship with Pam because even they couldn't tolerate the connotations of a world that crushes Michaels and rewards Jims. The relationship between Pam and Jim is a Michael-style fantasy from within the minds of the writers themselves.

It's a good show. It reminds you what you are.

>>14037748
Ironically: Creed
Unironically: Stanly

>>14037178
I love the elitism on this board cuz none of yall will ever outwrite the office. Get fucked, nerds

Everyone is overanalyzing it. There's nothing to it. Most people are absorbed in it by virtue of being pathetic. It's just another phenomena of the masses of a given epoch. That's all there is to it. Is it /lit? Of course not, but there's something to say about it's ability to make people laugh, but ultimately is closer to a drug as it's just a distraction from the mundanity of life that enables cowardice

>>14038795
It's made for the masses. I doubt Melville or Shakespeare would have more success than them in today's age. Grow up with your snarky bullshit fagnon.

Sorry.. But what does "based" mean?

>>14037491
That Carell is a fuck you to the system and female/Jew/whatever group you want to blame bureaucratic social norms that treat humans like commodities or objects on a conveyor belt

>>14038814
It means saying something that is true irrespective of the consequences or perceived social norms.

>>14038789
The first watch the hero is Michael Scott
The second watch the hero is Jim
The third watch is Pam
The fourth and final watch is Kevin, and you feel a growing hatred for Pam and disgust with Jim

>>14037487
Thanks for posting best girl

>>14039036
>4 watches
So the hero is Michael Scott, and you just got bored so your mind saw things that weren't there. Thanks anon.

>>14037627

I love 4chan

>>14037178
I watched it once. It's a good show.

>>14037560
>bland, and yet he gets the girl. In real life,
He always make her laugh, make prank jokes, have a positive view for his future, etc

>none posted this

>>14039212
what am i looking at here lmao

>>14039231
women suffering from office delusional syndrome.
>imagine finding the pam or jim characters anything but insufferable
>imagine being invested in their character's relationship
>imagine becoming obsessed with it to the point of actual emotional stress
>imagine being unable to differentiate between the actors and their characters
>imagine attacking the actors online over this

>>14038814
BITCH I THINK IM BASED GOD

>>14037191
yes

>>14037178
>introduce her to literature
I assume she's the type who hasn't read a book since high school. If so, unironically high concept young adult or genre fiction. After that try stuff that is well written and entertaining but not very difficult (i.e. Jane Austen)

>>14037277
lol

>>14037295
More based than usual...thanks /lit/

The way that this show is obsessed over (see reddit on any given day) is really interesting, and I think you have a good take on it.

My initial take on it was more along the lines of the obsessive fans seeking out a surrogate social group. My impression is that 'office addiction' generally hits post-education, pre-family, when social ties are falling apart for the unmarried (i.e. friend groups disbanding to form families).

Either way, I can't help but wince at how pathetic it is for grown adults to fawn over characters in a TV show.

>>14037295

lol, it's like Stefan Molyneux decided to hit up /lit/ and share his thoughts.

>>14037178
>American office
That is unfortunate

>>14037178
>two years ago
>finish watching this show
>talking about it with someone
>self-proclaimed redditor comes up to use
>are you guys talking about The Office?
>Yeah, I finished it last week
>Oh yeah I finished my 12th rewatch yesterday
The fuck is wrong with these people, it was just a decent sitcom

>>14037295
Jim is pretty much a douche.
He has nothing going on for him aside from sarcastically dismissing or flat-out disparaging every negative thing in his life. A lot of Jim's character comes from the fact that he is nothing. He has no ambition, no passion, no energy. Jim was destined to work in a dead-end job in a dying industry in a dead Rust Belt town because he doesn't have what it takes to do anything else.

That's why Dwight bothers the fuck out of him. Dwight is everything that Jim is not. Dwight is dedicated, ambitious, loyal, hardworking, and blunt, all to a fault. That's why Jim tries to bring Dwight back down and make Dwight feel the same emptiness and nihilism he does. Jim gets his satisfaction by sadistically ruining everyone else's time and effort. Dwight is an unbearable existence for Jim, who wants to have that same passion and energy as Dwight but he doesn't. Jim's only excitement comes from this documentary, where he can be the "straight man" and mock the ridiculous events that are going around him and the people he works with, when he knows deep down that Michael and Dwight are much happier than he is.

Pam ends up with Jim because they're cut from the same cloth. They are stuck in the rut with no way out because they lack ambition. Their only real comfort is being with each other, where they can pretend to have a fantasy life. Their common pranking and trolling the office is the only real glue binding them together. When Jim and Pam were forced to "grow up" in later seasons, they were so close to separating. It was only when Jim and Pam regressed to their initial relationship of being slackers and pranksters that they actually fell for each other again.

Dwight, conversely, is extremely loyal to Angela. Although he respected Angela enough to leave her to her own devices, and he tried to move on, something in his heart made Dwight go back to Angela. Dwight actually tried to change and improve himself. His love was genuine and complete.

>>14040569
This isn't a Houllebecq novel. Jesus. Cope a bit harder.

>>14038325
It's never too late to change, and it's a Wednesday. Think about what you can do Friday and Saturday night to meet new people, you still have time to make plans.

>>14037236
based and optimism pilled, keep it up, anon

>>14037409
Very cool, very intellectual

>>14040569
I have never even seen the office, just read about it here and there, and I feel like I understand it better now.

>>14037191
Watching The Office (US) 52 times is not happiness. Watching the much shorter (and better) The Office (Original) is not either. This is depression my friend, D E P R E S S I O N

>>14038516
Oh, I forgot about that. Happy endings aren't very British.

>>14037779
>>14037409
The only reason Michael Scott is a "wise fool" is because American audiences cannot take crippling depressive failure like British audiences can. There has to be some hope, so he is made (superficially) successful even though it makes no sense with everything else.

In the UK one he's a total failure.

>>14038516
Christmas is a magical time, but it wasn't very in keeping.

>>14041732
It's not a happy ending. It's a transitional job for T/Jim, he should be moving on.

>>14038822
God bless you

>>14041733
it's definitely an American narrative. i don't think it would be too far-off to say that the meaning they find is hermetically sealed - solipsistic even.

still, i find the credo quia absurdum of this take to be at least a little breath of fresh air. that there could be an ounce of wisdom in doubling down in spirit against production roles isn't something i find entirely wrong. is the American audience nobler than the Brits? i find the binarism itself to be stifling, so i'd rather wager on an alternative.

>>14037560

>>14037191
Yeah, this guy is happy too. Your point?

I didn't buy the episode where Angela wanted to get blacked by idris elba. It seemed out of character. Even if she secretly did (cuck writers desu) she should have hidden it from her co-workers instead of blurring it out.

>>14037236
Shut the fuck up you faggot piece of shit

>>14037236
Based positive poster

>>14042027
Redditor trying to fit in

>>14037540
god i wish i was them

>a thread about The Office has over 100 replies from people who've actually watched it

Not sure to be surprised or disappointed.

A girl I dated once said I reminded her of Jim. Never having watched the show I assumed this was a bad thing even though she meant it as a compliment, which is about par for the course with women and insight. Later I did see an episode or two in reruns but I hated it so much that I gleaned very little other than that DFW might have been onto something about the whole sincerity thing even though I thought he was the cringe one at first - the relentless irony made me unable to understand the show's social dynamics. It was like Cheers injected with concentrated Reddit (forgive me if Cheers is a clumsy comparson I hate all sitcoms and all TV for that matter).

This thread has given me more understanding than the reruns I watched. I broke up with her of course but it's true that I'm an asshole.

>>14037507
>>14037514
>>14037519
>>14037526
>>14037531
They paid some guy to take these, didn't they?

>try watching UK Office
>characters are witty and engaging, less predictable than US
>jokes clearly have more thought behind them
>still somehow doesn't even provoke a mild chuckle

My theory is that the US Office is more successful simply because of a lack of deadpan delivery. I love every piece of UK comedy I find, but when it comes to humor derived out of sarcasm or social embarassment, their delivery is just so deadpan that your brain doesn't have any natural 'cue' to laugh, like when Jim looks at the camera or Dwight randomly yells to his boss for help. People probably just don't "get" it, even though it's pretty much the exact same show.

>>14043275
It's very possible that you won't 'get' the UK Office until the second watch through, especially if you're used to American comedy (it's only 14 episodes, 12 of which are 20-30 mins and 2 of which are 40-50, so that isn't asking too much). Maybe try Peep Show first to ease yourself in.
The UK Office is /lit/ as fuck, the best depiction of wageslavery and 21st century Britain I've ever seen. The US Office can be funny but doesn't come close. Diversity Day is a fantastic episode though which would fit right into the UK one while still being obviously American (like Michael doing the Chris Rock skit)

>>14037178
She can't be saved. I'm sorry.

>>14043202
>it wasn't you

>>14037560
I don't get this stoic act ALPHA AS FUCK bull shit to get girls. I don't do any of that shit and I'm fairly successful.

>>14037560
i watched the office in middle school and totally based the way i go after grills on jim. it's not like i'm banging 10/10 every night but I'm fairly successful. Had a number of p attractive gfs. Jim's great insight is that it's abt being funny anon and appearing as if you're a good person. The understanding and sensitive stuff comes second. Just make the chick laugh. It's not hard autist

>>14039212
I'd still bang the fuck out of her. See what kind of degrading things I can get Pam to do.

>>14043337
its a facade for the microdicked

>>14037178
dump that delta wave slackjawed sack of human shit

>>14043275
I couldn't stop laughing at David Brent's antics. When they have the contest to throw the shoe over the building I lost my shit.

>>14038516
christmas special isn't cannon

Make her read Cioran

>>14047472
And Rilke