Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pop psychology has killed the villain

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#21

Post by willcipriano »

wpietri wrote: post #20
Nathanba wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you won't have a problem with people commenting this under everything you write? "I havent heard of William Pietri before, he seems to be a San Fransisco liberal, LGBT affirming atheist and leading figure for the ADL's Online Hate Index."

If you want, sure. Whatever floats your boat. An important difference here is that I try to have useful profiles pretty much anywhere I write. Whereas I had to look this information up specifically because UnHerd is studiously vague about all the things I mentioned: https://unherd.com/about-unherd/

If you were to write on religion, would you find it reasonable if the religious were to simply dismiss any argument you made, no matter how correct or well constructed, simply due to your atheism?

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#22

Post by Nathanba »

wpietri wrote: post #20
Nathanba wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you won't have a problem with people commenting this under everything you write? "I havent heard of William Pietri before, he seems to be a San Fransisco liberal, LGBT affirming atheist and leading figure for the ADL's Online Hate Index."

If you want, sure. Whatever floats your boat. An important difference here is that I try to have useful profiles pretty much anywhere I write. Whereas I had to look this information up specifically because UnHerd is studiously vague about all the things I mentioned: https://unherd.com/about-unherd/

I think the way you connected Unherd with Nigel Farage is a pinpointed, ill-intentioned way of disparaging a site and I think if you want to be honest, you know that's why you did it. It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#23

Post by woodruffw »

1MachineElf wrote: post #19

The majority of comments here seem to be critical of the author's thesis, with one even questioning the cultural-political motives behind this media outlet. FWIW, I agree with the author. I found myself thinking about this last night as I finished the first 10-episode season of Netflix's Cowboy Bebop live-adaptation[0]. There were many changes to the original story in the live adaptation, and I feel that part of thes…

> I'm opposed to it not just because it's a change to the source material, but also because it created a needless sense of moral ambiguity.

I haven't watched the live adaptation, but I find this complaint strange given that the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity: it's a neo-noir-cum-cowboy space opera about bounty hunters! They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals! And Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend!

Cowboy Bebop is all about the thing you're aping as a flaw in "contemporary entertainment": a collection of figures who do seem to have sufficient justification to do all of the morally ambiguous things we see them do throughout the show. That's what gives it it's appeal, instead of just being a crime procedural that's inexplicably in space.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#24

Post by woodruffw »

Nathanba wrote: post #22
wpietri wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want, sure. Whatever floats your boat. An important difference here is that I try to have useful profiles pretty much anywhere I write. Whereas I had to look this information up specifically because UnHerd is studiously vague about all the things I mentioned: https://unherd.com/about-unherd/

I think the way you connected Unherd with Nigel Farage is a pinpointed, ill-intentioned way of disparaging a site and I think if you want to be honest, you know that's why you did it. It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

> It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

Not only is it extremely normal, but it's also a time honored tradition in good journalism and civic mindedness. In another era we called it "following the money."

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#25

Post by woodruffw »

sp332 wrote: post #9
zozbot234 wrote: post #5

> Why is Cruella a canicidal fashionista? Because otherwise Dodie Smith’s story would have been just a bunch of dogs running about. I actually think that prequel did a pretty nice job of crafting Cruella's character. It's a lot closer to the common real-world theme of "the banality of evil" than some sort of fuzzy pop-psych story about deep trauma as seen wrt. The Joker. I'm not sure why OP felt like they needed to c…

Yeah but it also makes her not a dog-killer. I guess the writers didn't feel up to the task of making that seem banal. It crafted a different character.

I'm not much of a Disney person, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "no dog killing" change was more of a change in child media guidelines than the vague (and culture-war-y) psychological aspersions that the essay's author claims. Violence against animals (and children) is one of those "hard no" rules that I understand to be common practice when developing media for children. Which isn't to say that I necessarily agree with that rule.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#26

Post by wpietri »

Nathanba wrote: post #22
wpietri wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want, sure. Whatever floats your boat. An important difference here is that I try to have useful profiles pretty much anywhere I write. Whereas I had to look this information up specifically because UnHerd is studiously vague about all the things I mentioned: https://unherd.com/about-unherd/

I think the way you connected Unherd with Nigel Farage is a pinpointed, ill-intentioned way of disparaging a site and I think if you want to be honest, you know that's why you did it. It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

It is quite normal for journalists to disclose conflicts of interest, which especially includes ownership/funding. For example, The Economist: https://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/owners...

Or Pro Publica: https://www.propublica.org/supporters

The Washington Post gives their whole ownership history, including Jeff Bezos's purchase of it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/company-history/

That these folks aren't so forthright should concern anybody. And why should mentioning Farage be seen as disparaging by UnHerd's Daddy Warbucks? He liked the guy enough to put £10 million into getting him and others on the air, so I presume he's proud of the association. It's true I don't like Farage or his politics, but that doesn't oblige me to hide the name of the biggest star of the network that is the other major media effort of UnHerd's funder.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#27

Post by wpietri »

willcipriano wrote: post #21
wpietri wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want, sure. Whatever floats your boat. An important difference here is that I try to have useful profiles pretty much anywhere I write. Whereas I had to look this information up specifically because UnHerd is studiously vague about all the things I mentioned: https://unherd.com/about-unherd/

If you were to write on religion, would you find it reasonable if the religious were to simply dismiss any argument you made, no matter how correct or well constructed, simply due to your atheism?

Generally when I write on religion, I do make that clear. If some want to dismiss my views because of that, that's their choice. I certainly dismiss a lot of what religious people say, so I can hardly call it unfair.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#28

Post by willcipriano »

wpietri wrote: post #27
willcipriano wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to write on religion, would you find it reasonable if the religious were to simply dismiss any argument you made, no matter how correct or well constructed, simply due to your atheism?

Generally when I write on religion, I do make that clear. If some want to dismiss my views because of that, that's their choice. I certainly dismiss a lot of what religious people say, so I can hardly call it unfair.

In a world where everyone operated as you do, I don't think there would be much point in writing, as everyone who reads what you have to say will already agree with you.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#29

Post by wpietri »

willcipriano wrote: post #28
wpietri wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally when I write on religion, I do make that clear. If some want to dismiss my views because of that, that's their choice. I certainly dismiss a lot of what religious people say, so I can hardly call it unfair.

In a world where everyone operated as you do, I don't think there would be much point in writing, as everyone who reads what you have to say will already agree with you.

Not at all. I have plenty of good dialog with people of goodwill that I disagree with. And I have time for that because I don't waste a lot of time on people who are engaging in motivated reasoning, propaganda, suppressing cognitive dissonance, disinformation, and the like.

And I'm sure you do the same. How much time do you spend in open-minded conversation with Flat Earthers or UFO cultists or Q adherents or telemarketers? I don't think there's much point in talking with people who aren't thoughtful, sincere, and at least self-critical enough to have their acts together. But there are plenty of people who qualify.

Post reply on HN