One of the three panelists who discussed season 2 of “The Handmaid’s Tale” seems to think that her identity as a lesbian pre-qualifies her to provide unique and necessary perspective on a show that is a genuine cultural fire alarm, yet she takes an automatic position against the showrunner because of his identity as a male. It’s hypocritical and ironic, since his material went way over her head. Among the idiotic points the hosts tried to get across: “Season 2 didn’t hew to the source material” (Atwood’s book was written a generation ago, and the series is set in the present day. People say “What the actual *uck” a lot in Trump’s America); “The story is too focused on June and her glum face [paraphrase] when they could have done more of an ensemble” (the source material is June’s POV). Also: “How do these characters find joy in Gilead?” (er, Gilead is a bummer and then you die). When I tune to Slate, I expect well-informed, insightful and smart discussion, not wandering, incoherent, uncentered smack because it’s cool to be contrarian. And seriously, I counted 837 utterances of the word “like” as filler (I didn’t actually count - there may have been more).