This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://curi.us/2607-kpop-demon-hunters
1 Like
~yeah idk how people process this message. a coworker of mine is fairly political (though he limits how much he brings up politics at work) and heâs mentioned stuff about how people are intolerant, especially, in his eyes, conservatives. he has shared a sentiment about being nicer to people and stuff. he contradicts himself a lot though on this. a recent example: I watched a video about sports betting from coffeezilla about sports betting I think. i talked about it with him and mentioned how i thought it was kinda sad that people were ruining their lives over this. he agreed, partially, but he didnât care for the stupid frat boys and stuff doing it. to him those guys kinda had it coming to them and deserved to have their lives ruined. idk, seems kinda mean and not in line with being kind to others.
Hmm. That makes sense.
I wonder if they think that regular people with flaws are viewed as fine and are accepted.
another example i remembered, this time from a podcast i watch a lot. one of the co-hosts in one episode shared a sentiment about how people donât listen to each other, just get mad and are intolerant of other ideas. that same co-host in a similar discussion (some episodes later) argued against a different co-host who actually tries to embody that. criticizing him by saying that this is how we get conspiracy theorists and stuff and making it clear heâs openly hostile and not interested in listening to what he thinks are bad ideas
I watched the film last night. On the whole I liked it. Some spoilers below.
One thing I wonder about is how much people pick up on, respond to, or internalize less explicit parts of films like this. If people subconsciously respond less to the explicit parts and more to the implicit parts, it might explain why media that moralizes is not particularly effective.
For example, when the saja boys are introduced, zoey and mira are shown to be infatuated immediately, theyâre then rejected and immediately turn hostile. I donât think it was the intention of the writers to glorify that pattern of behavior, but that element isnât really resolved. Arguably itâs still present in the climax since itâs played for laughs. If the roles were reversed it would be seen as incel-type behavior. Thereâs also some LoLE dynamics to flip the social hierarchy which I think kids will pick up on.
I have not watched KPop Demon Hunters. I enjoyed this blog post because it raised a question Iâve never thought of before: Why do people like a movie that espouses values that go against how they actually behave?
I have noticed that I also like some things but donât always behave in a way that fits that value. Maybe Iâm incongruent? Maybe people are drawn to ideals and things they want to be like but currently are not. Aspirational values.
But in the context of KPop Demon Hunters I could imagine a scenario where e.g. a teen girl watches and likes it, but sheâs popular in high school and along with her popular friends bullies a less popular girl who has been deemed weird by them. I donât know how to reconcile that contradiction. Maybe thereâs a gap between the girlâs understanding of the values in the movie vs. the decisions she faces in real life?
It might also be that movies and media in general make it seem easier to be nice than it actually is in real life. Perhaps it idealizes or romanticizes the actual execution of those values.
The blog post touches on all of these thoughts I had and more: (below quote from the blog post)
So of course people arenât great at actually being nice and accepting in the way KDH says to. Even in KDH itself, there are conflicting themes. KDH normalizes a small number of people being ultra-popular while ignoring that some people in the huge audience can also sing well but will never get similar recognition for their talent. And either thatâs unfair or else the less popular people have less merit in which case being dismissive of them in some ways is valid.
KDH normalizes being accepting of flaws from ultra-popular people. It illustrates that. It doesnât illustrate any regular fans in the crowd having flaws and being accepted anyway. It doesnât even illustrate people in the crowd with no notable flaws being important, interesting or talented, or getting much attention.
Popularity and status in general are interesting topics to me and I like reading blog posts that touch on them or help me understand them better. Itâs true in real life too that many talented people never get famous, while some people less talented than them do get famous.
Another quote:
A important consideration is that if everyone dismisses the same stuff, instead of using independent judgment, then some ideas get a lot of attention while others get none. A million intellectuals have time to investigate over a million ideas. My view is that people should pay more attention to which ideas are have already received engagement. In other words, if someone wrote down a refutation of an idea (and is handling followup questions and criticisms about their refutation), then I donât need to investigate it myself since itâs already being handled. But if no one is looking at an idea, I should be more open to it. If lots of people had this attitude, then the coverage of ideas that get attention could be better instead of being overly focused on a small number of popular ideas (paralleling how a small number of pop stars get a ton of attention while a lot of other music gets ignored, some of which is actually good).
I was a bit confused by this at first because it said people should pay more attention to which ideas have already received engagement. I interpreted that as prioritizing those ideas or viewing them as worth more attention, analysis, or investigation. But I think the next part about being more open to ideas no one is looking at actually means that people should pay attention to ideas receiving attention so that they can actually focus more on the other ideas that arenât receiving attention, since they arenât getting intellectual attention or debate. This way more ideas get worked on and weâd make more progress overall. I find this idea interesting. Itâs like each person taking responsibility for intellectual progress. When they see an idea already being handled, they move on until they find one that nobody has picked up, and if it interests them, they pick it up and write about it or respond to it. I like it!
And near the end of the post:
I think thereâs something interesting about people who live in a society with tons of meanness and dismissiveness watching yet another movie saying not to do that, and liking it, while knowing that people are going to keep doing it anyway. A lot of the people who like the movie will do the thing the movie says not to do, but instead of being offended they just nod along and agree then donât act accordingly.
This is interesting to me too. It also seems really common. Itâs like content that shows us whatâs ideal and possible and a possible better way of being strikes some part of us that wants to experience that, even if just through a screen temporarily, and maybe we suspend disbelief for a bit even if we might rationally know that the real world wonât meaningfully be different from the values weâre attracted to in the movie.
Personally I know Iâm pretty idealistic but Iâve also grown somewhat jaded from trying to apply the ideals and failing or running into conflicts in life that I didnât expect. Now I think itâs normal for it to be challenging to live a life according to my values and that it wonât always be easy to make the right choice. Media like this might make it seem unrealistically easy or natural when in reality thereâll be moral dilemmas and internal conflict when it comes to these decisions.
Iâll let you know what I thought after watching the movie
I know in the next paragraph you talk about why people like the theme, but my questions about it are how much do people follow the message of the theme? Do they like it cuz they agree with it partially? How different can a person be for others to still be nice to them?
I see you say being nice to people who are different is part of how our society is peaceful, but does that also mean people want peace or a peaceful society? Thatâs why they want to be nice to each other, and why they see KDHâs theme as nice, good and moral.
I see that I think, like many people havenât figured out how to be nice to each other, but want to see themselves as being nicer anyways.
Thatâs interesting even though the movie was very popular and it used the theme of âbe tolerantâ, itâs still difficult for people to interpret the message and understand its meaning. It seems difficult for them to apply it to their situation. Part of me expected the movie to be really good at not just being popular but also teaching a lot of people important things.
I think the theme of niceness, acceptance, tolerance, etc., is very vague. You shouldnât just give an hour of free attention to anyone who asks for it. You should be somewhat dismissive in some ways. You shouldnât be violent or yell slurs at people (usually, but self defense can be OK), but you can be cold and mean without doing anything egregious like that. So what ways should you be nice or not? How nice should you be to who? You shouldnât treat everyone identically. This stuff isnât specified in any detail by the movie or by any book I know of.
I think this is broadly true for most people across most movie genres. It is not specific to the themes in KPop Demon Hunters (not saying you or Elliot claimed it was).
There are entire genres of films that espouse values that the audience do not live.
For example, heroic action movies where one person is willing to stand up against injustice/evil/crime/violence, or even grayer action movies where one person is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to rescue someone/get vengeance/etc.
People love these movies, but most people donât live values like that. Most people donât stand up for their values or principles or even their loved ones to that extent. Most people do not experience the extreme scenarios in these stories, but they often donât even stand up for this stuff to a much less extreme extent that would be relevant in their life.
Another example: There are detective stories where the detective is obsessed with solving a mystery and finding the truth. They keep pursuing the truth, come into conflict with superiors, and reject convenient falsehoods until they find the real answer. But most people donât behave that way. Most cops donât, but also just applied to regular life most people do not try to find truthful answers to problems with that kind of dedication.
Overall my guess is that a majority of films (and stories in general) promote values that the average viewer/fan of the film fails to live up to.
Why? I donât really know, but I have some guesses.
Fictional stories are often pretty good at creating dramatic, extreme scenarios. These may be totally unrealistic, or they might be realistic but unusual in that most people donât experience something quite as extreme. They do this for many reasons. A big one is: Itâs more exciting and thus captures attention better.
But another reason is that those scenarios can make conflicts and problems clearer. Real life can be messy and confusing. Your personal biases and emotions can get in the way. In fiction, it is often easier to tell whatâs going on. Stuff like⌠Who is the bad guy. Who has positive motives, who is misguided, who is evil. What are the stakes.
When it isnât your life, and when so many of the variables are more clearly demonstrated in the story, it can be a lot easier to understand which principles are good and which are bad. But once the story ends and you go back to your real life, it may not be so easy to translate the same ideas. You arenât a neutral observer. To you, everyone who fucks you over feels like the bad guy, with evil motives. Watching a movie you could e.g. recognize that a bad guy was misguided and deserves a second chance, but in real life you may not be able to see the same things.
Circling this back to KPDH a little⌠most people like the idea of being tolerant of differences and nice. When it is demonstrated in a film with an exaggerated scenario, itâs relatively easy to see whatâs going on and how to be tolerant. The protagonist is nice and cool, so obviously we should be tolerant of her differences.
In real life, things are messy.
Being tolerant of flaws is good, though. And you totally live that value, for example you are tolerant of your dadâs flaw where he says the N word and complains about the Jews controlling the media, because he loves you and he is a good father and grandfather. And you believe being tolerant in general is good, which is why you are so concerned that the younger generation of atheists is so intolerant of Christianity nowadays.
And obviously, being tolerant is not the same thing as being stupid and self-destructive. The Demon Hunters accepted their friendâs flaws but they still killed the evil demons afterwards. They didnât just welcome the demons into the human world. You know that wouldnât be tolerant, it would be stupid and suicidal. And likewise, we canât just welcome in 100 million illegals the way Biden did, that was stupid and suicidal. We have to get rid of them, because they are evil demons poisoning our country, and if that requires sending ICE into cities, suspending due process, putting the demons in camps, and killing people that try to stop us⌠well, you know thatâs necessary to protect ourselves from this invasion.
Of course youâre tolerant of flaws and differences. But you canât be tolerant of demons, obviously. You are tolerant of the flaws of the people you care about, people in your tribe. Because youâre a good person.
Yeah I noticed the way they casually kill demons, while smiling, was very problematic if you consider the demons in terms of being heretics or enemy soldiers in wars.
Related to attitudes to demons: audiences are OK with Jinu dying at the end but would absolutely not have been OK with Rumi, Zoey or Mira dying. Partly this is related to main vs. side characters, but I think partly heâs viewed as deserving death for his past mistakes and for being a demon. The mistakes are being a jerk to his family which no one thinks merits the death penalty, especially when done to escape extreme poverty, and also getting involved with demons. Also his death was shown as heroic/altruistic so people see it as more of a happy redemption ending than other scenarios where heâs equally dead and gone. I think the emphasis our culture places on how people die has some connections with military propaganda. While it does matter, sometimes people let it overshadow how big a deal death is, and how the experience of dying and being dead is largely the same regardless (and actually a lot of heroic deaths are more painful in the moments right before death).
Unrelated, the demon hunters are drawn anorexic with video game proportions but shown eating like they arenât anorexic, which is also problematic.
So people reject others because they are different.
Whatâs the difference between rejecting someone and dismissing them? If youâre rejecting someone, youâre dismissing them? I think if youâre rejecting them from something, itâs from like a club or friend group. For dismissing someone, I think if someone is different they could be dismissed from being treated nicely or having a conversation or being taken seriously.
My half-baked thoughts below:
I donât think they do either. I think a person that studies rationality or psychology doesnât ecxcel at tolereance cuz what are they studying to be tolerant?
Iâm thinking at least in the fields of rationality itâs hard to understand how to get better at tolerance. I think studying something like CF can help with learning to be more tolerant. I think learning resolving conflicts of ideas can help one be more tolerant cuz they take the other side of an argument more into consideration and donât just shut them down in favor of their idea. But I also think you have to make the connection to be tolerant to others. Idk what psychology or rationality helps with that? I havenât really researched so there might be some examples. But how does rationality stuff and psychology have people excel at tolerance? I think people learn to be tolerant on their own through their own reasoning and knowledge.
The question I have is what are they studying to help them not be racist? I think being tolerant is a boundary based thing that people remind each other of. Like, itâs not really explained well, and so people donât understand how it works in situations where theyâre actually being racist.
When you say people donât have to be mean to anyone, does âhaveâ refer to the limited time and attention that they have? Just cuz they have limited time and attention, it doesnât mean they have to be mean to anyone.
Because people are mean anyways, thatâs the difficulty you were talking about in the next sentence? Idk
I see thereâs a âbutâ in the quote above, but idk whatâs being contrasted. Does âThey donât have to be mean to anyoneâ mean people donât have to be intolerant of anyone?
Is the difficulty that people are actually being mean when they donât have to? Or that people are intolerant of others when they donât have to? Or is the difficulty something that is hard to understand? Like, those that view the theme as saying to be nice to everyone, etc. are being unrealistic. You canât be nice to everyone. The difficulty is that they are being unrealistic.
The difficulty is connected with violence?
Most of these thoughts I think are half-baked. I feel like im getting somewhere with them but Iâm missing the bigger picture:
Iâm thinking you say âto some extentâ cuz there may be some exceptions. I have to look up what to some extent means and figure why you said it.
I think since popularity has to do with being paid attention to and being praised or liked or whatever, people either pay attention to you or not. Maybe sometimes one person pays more attention to others and the resource goes higher? Idk, I think looking at the meaning of what popularity is may say why you say âto some extent.â I donât think looking that up makes a whole lot of difference to your point tho.
You say âAnd either thatâs unfairâ cuz why do people with as much merit not get popular too, I think. Why do a small number of people have to be ultra-popular? Why not just popular? Have the popularity go around more.
And I think you say âAnd either thatâs unfair or elseâ cuz if it isnât unfair then itâs the case I think that the less popular people have less merit. I donât know how less popular people are seen as having less merit if they can sing just as well.
Itâs interesting how the movie may serve to be beneficial to very popular people. Like, by logic and how not everybody can be popular, people will be dismissed and treated intolerably. That makes me think thereâs not a lot of rational thinking going into making these kinds of movies, and that that can cause harm I guess. I say âI guessâ cuz I donât want to just say something causes harm readily, I donât know a lot about what causes others harm.
For the third sentence of the quote above:
I think if someone saw that as a point in a casual convo, they would respond: âWhy them? Itâs not about them?â Or âThat doesnât make sense. Youâre overthinking the movieâ or âI donât see how that all connects, why are you bringing up regular fans being the center of the story?â Or why pay attention to those average joes??? KDH is so likeable.â
Oh, sheâs already popular? I think her being popular just makes it easier to illustrate the theme. I think itâs harder to show how an unpopular person is good enough. I think thatâs cuz there is truth to how much merit doesnât matter to being popular. You could be a really good singer but not be liked. Idk
Thatâs where things donât make sense. Like, I donât think the movie or the people who made the movie know whatâs good enough in somebody. Cuz why not apply that to show how everyone is good enough? Maybe if the viewer just doesnât overthink their anxiety they can find that they are a really good singer. Ok, what about the people who are good enough at singing high notes, but need to work on having a more consistent tone or sing low notes or soemthing(idk a lot about music). Thatâs the thing, I donât think people know what success is, like how does look like for someone who isnât super popular or doesnât want to be. How does success look like for them?
Whatâs that? I tried googling it. Sadge.
I could be reading this wrong. Uhh. Oh. Hmm.
Are you saying that the moralizing is explicit in films like this? I think what you say makes sense. I kinda just assumed that a lot of the stuff Elliot mentioned is implicit. Woops. I just assumed they wanted to make a movie and the themes are whatever to them. The fun movie takes priority and then they add themes and stuff. Hope that makes sense?
Law of Least Effort. Basically that people convey being high up in a social hierarchy by appearing as though they donât put much effort in to things. Basically, stuff you do looks cooler.
This query is useful: site:curi.us LoLE for any CF specific terms/ideas. (I donât think LoLE is CF specific, but searching curi.us is useful in this case)
1 Like
Maybe? I think people in general struggle to match values they talk about. This kind of reminds of me something related to Rand. I think Peikoff mentioned how when Atlas Shrugged was first published. He and others (and maybe Rand?) thought the world would get better fast because of the convincingness of Atlas Shrugged. Instead people read it, some (maybe a lot, idk) liked it, said they agreed with it, and changed pmuch nothing on their lives.
I wonder if it has something to do with something else Iâve heard of before (I think from Rand?): the church mentality (or smth like that). People care about their values only at like important times. Not in their general lives. You go to church and youâll do charity and stuff. The rest of the week youâre your average self.
~yeah. I think media makes things feel easier than they are. reading something like Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead makes having integrity and being rational easy. I donât think Rand wrote it in a way that said their easy. But something about reading about it makes it feel easy.
Ahh. Ok. Iâm kind of aware of what that is. Wasnât used to seeing it abbreviated.
I didnât know you can search like that. Thats neat. Thanks!
1 Like
It can be helpful to append âacronymâ when googling an unfamiliar set of initials like that. Just googling âloleâ you get a ton of stuff for a clothing brand. But if you add the word acronym to the search it immediately finds Law of Least Effort.
Still good to ask if you donât know, since maybe Anon45 was referring to some other identical acronym. Good to clarify so you know for sure.
1 Like
Rand made multiple attempts to present it as hard. Roark closed his architecture office and worked as a manual laborer. Dagny quit her job at the railroad and had a rough time at the cabin â and then returned to the railroad against the advice of Galt and others. Kira had it even harder.
There is media where everything always works out for the protagonist and their setbacks are only superficial. But Randâs books arenât like that.
Thereâs also media where everything works out for the protagonist in the end, and their setbacks are only temporary. I think at least Fountainhead is like this â Roark ends the book in a triumphant way, his life is going well, he is doing architecture and he got the girl.
That is meaningfully different from the setbacks being superficial. Many protagonists in successful fiction experience very real, serious setbacks. They get badly injured, or lose their job, or have their reputation smeared, or have close friends die, or get their heart broken, etc. But in most fiction, the protagonist overcomes the setbacks and ends the story in a triumphant way.
My guess would be the exceptions in either direction â the story ending sadly with the setbacks having broken the protagonist, or the story being an easy experience where most stuff just works out with minimal problems for the protagonist â arenât uncommon but might be a relative minority. Though it varies some across genres, too.
I wonder if this feeling might occur even if the setbacks are serious but temporary. Not just when the setbacks are superficial/trivial.
Because by the end of the story things worked out okay. People often are biased to most remember their feeling at the end of a story rather than how they felt throughout it (e.g. when the hero was at their lowest). So if things worked out in the end, I wouldnât be surprised if many people come away from that feeling like it wasnât all that bad and they, too, could have done what the protagonist did.
If you watch TV shows, e.g. police procedurals, things tend to wrap up positively in under an hour, often with minimal adversity. Like the adversity is they had to go find some more evidence and their boss doubted them in the middle. Medical drama TV shows often follow the same structure.
Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are more in line with highly respected books for having more adversity, drama, ups and downs, etc. Itâs different than a lot of plotlines youâd see with Superman, Star Trek, Law and Order, fanfiction. If you donât think AS and FH show success as hard, then do any stories (particularly about realistic scenarios, not zombie apocalypses)?
And We the Living doesnât have a good ending despite having a deserving hero.
I agree. I was just saying that something about reading makes things feel easy. I wasnât talking about how the setbacks the characters face per se. Its more so something about just reading it makes it feel easier to achieve than it actually is. Like, idk, when Rearden refuses to work with the government and instead chooses to fight the issue with the regulation in court (I hope Iâm remembering that correctly). Do I think I can as easily make decisions as Rearden makes, or any of the other protagonists in Miss Reardens books? No, but something about reading those actions makes it feel like something I can do. Its like by reading I felt like I did it.