It's just a groupthink dogma that everyone has to announce as their own revolutionary hot take.

Personally, I've enjoyed most of the shows that edgelords can't wait to pitchfork for demise. And the people who profess to hate them, I notice they crave each new episode... just to shit on something they clearly are addicted to.

They do it to anything good. They did it to The Sopranos in season 1, and everything since.

It goes in tandem with them cheering when a good show ends prematurely. You'll be able to watch that play out in real time this month as Succession ends after just 4 seasons, with no appreciable waning of quality.

It's like someone comes to a buffet, drools over every dish, stuffs themselves deliriously with great food, then later says none of it was any good.

They'll refuse to concede that say, a fifth season of Succession would still be one of the best seasons of viewing imaginable. Their manufactured hate is often debunked. Many of the favorite plots and highlights of series come after the date the edgelord edict tries to claim there was no worth. Great episodes and seasons followed Henry Blake's departure, Michael Scott's departure, Fia Gallagher's departure. Haters of Dexter still salivated and enjoyed every minute while they watched New Blood, then rushed online to complain the pizza they just gorged was supposedly unappealing.

Sometimes it's fear or depression manifesting as hate; they idolize a given actor and can't process their departure from a show. Sometimes it's darker, like a character is introduced that their real world peer group dictates much be hated, ie Taylor on Billions.

It's such an odd, self-hate-based phenomenon. I'll enjoy the upcoming seasons of Succession and Billions, and won't feel a compunction to scream they need to be killed off. And for shows I truly don't enjoy, I simply don't watch them. I don't need to actively try to end them for others who do still like them. If Grey's Anatomy wants to keep on going, I'm happy for those fans that enjoy it, even if I don't. Other shows I've noped out of you won't see me actively trying to end. Why not let those who enjoy it continue to enjoy it?

I almost wish there was some kind of consequence for the bloodlust, like if you rush to declare some show has jumped the shark, that should come with a way to make sure you're not allowed to quietly enjoy the subsequent episodes or seasons.

You're right. There's no law that's says something has to be excellent. It can be mediocre or full of lazy fictionalizations. But don't ask me to bless and blindly worship those flaws then, the way his followers do.

After some years, I thought that militancy would fade, but it seems like it won't.

> you are assuming that the purpose of the show was to maximize educational potential,

You're assuming wrong. But why should a work only have one limited purpose, to the extent that worshippers are violently opposed to it having multiple purposes?

Why do they dictate that the good has to come with bad? Why not good plus good plus good?

> think the purpose was to tell a story of a crazy event that happened

On your definition then, it failed, because it didn't tell the story of "what happened".

> that hopefully gets people more interested in the event to learn more about it.

The better way to do that is not to lie. Tell the truth. Those who decide to dig deeper will be further amazed as they learn that what you've told them is actually true.

> I think you are in a very small minority of people who watched the show who thinks the show didn’t make sense

That's not what I said.

> or was not very impactful.

Ok, that's a second mistruth, and kind of a big lie considering I've said the opposite.

> one of the most acclaimed shows of all time,

That's a common logic fallacy. Popular doesn't mean right. Or true. Or good. It just means popular.

> universally beloved.

Also false.

> that makes me disappointed in the artistic choices

That's common among the die hard fans. They won't accept any room for improvement, and thus to uphold that, they have to eschew any admission of disappointment.

> I don’t think a straight factual telling of the events would be as good as what we got,

No, it would have been better.

> You seem to be very aggressive in the attacks

No. The facts are what are aggressive. You just can't really refute them so you're demonizing them. You opened with that same projection.

> saying they abandoned integrity.

It doesn't matter whether I'm saying it or not, they did. At inception, a moral choice was made: do I tell the truth or do I not?

Consider your own life. You make choices. Will I be violent to my spouse or is that off the table? Will I steal from my employer or is that a red line I don't cross? Whether a person finds these choices hard or not isn't the main point. The main point is that breaking these lines is a choice. Some choices are akin to breaking glass. Once done, you can't undo it.

> Why are you so upset about this particular story?

Yours is an astute question.

Nuclear disinformation and false propaganda is on track to causing early destruction of society as we know it. An incredibly popular and influential piece of media like this is planting false beliefs in younger generations who won't know they've been duped until it's too late, if ever.

There's existentially dangerous hubris in thinking "oh this can only happen if a moustachioed comic villain does a bad thing, so as long as watch out for that guy, nuclear is safe and clean" or "nuclear accidents only happen when crooked Russia cheaps out on their graphite rods, so we should be good". It's a message saying "Who needs a scientific community when all we need is that one heroic (and non-existent) beautiful woman to save the day?"

It's harmful oversimplification to the point of falsehood. And it lets people handwave risks and support fatally misguided priority setting.

If "I, Tonya" wants to be a fun quasi-fiction, who cares? That won't hasten global suffering. Works like Chernobyl might. Or they have the potential to help, but don't.

> I think the potential was maximized by using artistic licenses

That's the opposite of true. You don't maximize educational potential by lying to young viewers. That's destroying the educational potential.

We already agree, 50 out of 50 on entertainment. But imagine my proposed version, with 50/50 entertainer plus an extra 50/50 on legitimacy.

> when it made sense and provided a more impactful narrative.

It did neither. Lots of it didn't make sense, and by being untruthful, it was less impactful.

There's just lots of people who don't know that. When they learn, people end up being disappointed he lied so much. Some die hard fans use justification, but you can tell they kind of wish he hadn't cheated them either.

> If you want to watch a documentary, watch a documentary.

Why not have something that's doubly good? And in fact the non-fictionalized is better than the one you've been told anyway.

> There’s validity to that being a better educational choice.

> But to make a dramatic television show or movie, there are choices a writer and director have to make

Only if that writer first makes the decision that they're going to abandon integrity and assume the audience is too dumb or lacks discernment.

> in order to make the story flow better and drive home the emotional points

Again, there were no cheats that made the story "flow" better or drove emotion better.

> There is a good podcast that accompanied the show

The podcast was self-indulgent tripe in which he made feeble excuses for disrespecting the viewers and fictionalizing so much.

What's most surprising (but perhaps shouldn't be) is how redditors, who normally reject such inauthenticity and infantilization, just gobbled him up with a spoon. Even today, as you are, they argue that by watering it down it's actually more concentrated, which is course false.

It's telling when fans look at something and refuse to see even a speck of improvement being possible.

> At some point, there is personal responsibility for the viewer to seek out the historical record rather than repeating what they saw on a TV show

Why?

Why make something deliberately flawed and then force viewers to go learn that you've bent the truth?

Imagine if Chernobyl used a principle of being only truthful. No injections of bull. It would have been more powerful because it would gave been true. No need for the handful of the intellectually curious to eventually wander off and find out what was wring with it. Just make it a solid gut punch of strictly true events and explanations. No hyperbole. No fakery. Just brutal, horrifying truth.

The way you're explaining it sounds like adding more ghosts and car chases would have been welcomed.

Check out Chernobyl Diaries

Having lived through the actual events, the tv Series was immensely enjoyable... but had a disappointing failure of potential.

The creator heavily fictionalized it, but worse, he didn't have to.

The same series, but made with a principle of being strictly factual, would have been just as terrifying. Probably even more so, because it would have all been true.

It could then have been not just incredible entertainment, but powerful education too.

Alas, he went for creative license over significance and legitimacy. There's now a couple of generations (and counting) who will have a false record of history because they think it's a documentary. And derivative works that build on those false impressions will end up revising history forever due to the flawed way that citations and argument work.

Both shows were worthy of continuing, but especially Let The Right One In

What I'm saying is if we could create legislation that states company executive and board members go to prison if X happens, you'll find they have miraculous solutions and previously unrevealed projects that guarantee X won't happen.

Probably true, plus there's apparently a strong trend where a huge portion of home buying is now being done by institutional real estate conglomerates. Rocket is where young and first time and less affluent go, so their market is shrinking. And the RE conglomerates would have no need as they get their own financing.

On the other hand, supposedly big banks including WFC are ceding the mortgage origination territory to outfits like Rocket, so whatever business there is coming available, they'd have a shot at. And it seems to me that other than advertising, rocket is set up to only make money on every deal. In other words, they only pay out the big commisions and costs when a deal closes and by definition they'd only close deals that work. Costs would be self correcting then. Ie: it's the unicorn business model that should have guaranteed break-even or better operations at any scale. (Again, leaving out advertising of course)

So even though logic says it's untouchable, so was TSLA a month ago, and META before that, and NVDA before that.

Can't speak to any of these but I do think at least one out of the dozens of the EV moon shots might work out.

No. Check the flair and don't be so needlessly aggro.

If risk of executives or board members doing any jail or prison time for things was actually on the table, we could fix so many things.

That's an awfully specific confession. Good luck with all that...

I basically did with the top half ones. All of them I strongly considered buying at their recent lows, but the sentiment and fundamentals were mostly off-putting. I did go big into NFLX $165-185 And scaled out $235-285. For crpoto I do derivative names like miners/data centers so my commitment there was just to hold, and some say any day you don't sell is like the same as buying. They've rallied strongly this month so I've been scaling out.

But the post is inspired by how all of these backtested well.

Thank you for bringing the much overlooked wiener fanboy perspective.

Several of these names (top half) when they bottomed I wonder if it was worth dumpster diving, but they just seemed too unloved.

All the things on the bottom have that same feeling: nothing good there, and only bad news on the horizon. Remember late Dec as Musk was self-immolating, inventories climbing, story after story of low quality and overpricing. Analysts were sure TSLA would "break the buck" (fall below $100)

I'll tell her. But which of these do you think could have its big bounce? Or is there another dumpster grade large cap you think is next to rise?

> I think they are going to outperform

Can you clarify, who will outperform? SOFI? Or money center banks?

You say SOFI is blue chip clients but my impression is its young people, young graduates. Hence why they've been slammed every time there's a student loan related headline.

One theory is if the GOP succeeds in killing off the remaining parts of student loan forgiveness (most people don't realize there's already been a lot of beneficial student loan relief) that could be good for SOFI, who will basically be the go-to institution of choice for that braid demographic.

Interesting topic. I guess I was thinking of things were the entire public and investing community have agreed something is radioactive, or "uninvestable". Things like DNA wouldn't have that broad retail sentiment, it would be more confined to followers of that niche.

Also interesting that I seemed to recall citron said he wasn't going to be public with his negatives after he was being attacked by followers of a certain video game retail stock.

I just said "large" without qualifying that but not sure it's the same "large" as the example names. Maybe Biotech ETF?

Visual Mod all in after a 75% rise...

This is fascinating thread through the tapestry of movie history.

That film was a milestone and kicked off the found footage genre.

Someone posted an interview from 25 years ago where she details the gruelling and experimental process and where she and the other actors improvised huge elements of it.

The broader context is it sounds like even after the huge and unexpected financial success of the film they didn't go back and reward the actors beyond their initial stipends.

It seems she now makes videos that are maybe metaphysical self help related? Regardless, one of those people who has made our brief time here more interesting.

> There’s nothing interesting about watching likeminded people jerk each other off in an echo chamber or the same pundits

Yeah! Like Bill Maher would never do that. /s