9 ms·

I've watched S01 but I'm not sure I'll watch S02. The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. I'm a normal person and I don't have difficult

I've watched S01 but I'm not sure I'll watch S02. The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. I'm a normal person and I don't have difficulties in dealing with other human beings. Also the part about vilifying companies and loving big government is not my cup of tea. At least in Person of Interest both were bad. Last part, vilifying money as a medium of exchange is just absurd. Are they expecting to exchange their computer services for eggs at the supermarket?

dllthomas 10y ago
You should watch S02. The dorm-room philosophy of the protagonists is not handled uncritically.
- k__ 10y ago
  what? S02 takes the whole thing to another level...
- jknoepfler 10y ago
  This is probably the reason I'm willing to watch the show. The writing is pleasantly, surprisingly intelligent at times.
jonknee 10y ago
> The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. I'm a normal person and I don't have difficulties in dealing with other human beings. TV shows centered around normal people are really boring.
- Unklejoe 10y ago
  Except Seinfeld, of course.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    If only my normal friends were comedians!
  - wnevets 10y ago
    who was the normal one in Seinfeld?
    - Unklejoe 10y ago
      They all had their quirks, but overall, they were all meant to be relatable to in their own way. Of course, some were really out there (Kramer, Soup Nazi, etc...), but I think Jerry, George, and Elaine were all kind of normal. I believe that the show was so popular because many people saw connections between the characters and people they actually knew in real life. Compared to Mr. Robot, I would say that the characters in Seinfeld were far more normal. So maybe relatable doesn’t necessarily mean normal, but that’s what I was thinking.
      - wnevets 10y ago
        When the show started that was probably the case but as the seasons went on they became cartoon characters. I believe the finale was to show just how awful they and their actions were.
        Unklejoe 10y ago
        Yeah true. It seems like that's the trend for a lot of shows. The events and characters keep getting more and more ridiculous. I guess they have to keep introducing new things to keep the show interesting. I think it’s starting to happen with Mr. Robot already. I liked season 1 a lot, but I’m not as big of a fan of season 2. I think they’re going too far with the whole “delusional acid trip” kind of thing.
  - dikaiosune 10y ago
    Are normal people actually that mean and uncaring? It's not been my personal experience.
    - Unklejoe 10y ago
      Well, I think the answer to that is going to vary a lot based on the personal experiences of the person answering, so here's my take: I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s been my personal experience that many groups of friends partake in “shit talking” or “gossiping” when no one is around. This leads me to believe that many people can be uncaring behind closed doors (which is what I think Seinfeld was meant to show, and which is why many people could relate to the show).
    - bcholmes 10y ago
      Isn't "mean" a synonym for "average"? :)
- colmvp 10y ago
  I think though there's a difference between cliche/stereotyped characters and whether or not a character is interesting .
  - okwhatthe2 10y ago
    It seems OP was referencing a cliché trope as opposed to cliché character.
libertymcateer 10y ago
> about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. > vilifying companies and loving big government is not my cup of tea > vilifying money as a medium of exchange is just absurd You should watch season 2. All of the above are directly addressed.
bitwize 10y ago
For some reason hacker fiction became less interesting when the stereotype went from "hip awesome dude who skateboards to class" to "depressed guy in a gray hoodie". I chose the former when it came time to design a protagonist for my totally unrealistic hacking-themed mobile game.
the_watcher 10y ago
Elliott isn't good with people. The owner of the firm is. Like all professions, IT contains people who struggle socially and those who do not. > Also the part about vilifying companies and loving big government is not my cup of tea. Watch Season 2 before you make any judgments on who the bad guys actually are.
s_q_b 10y ago
The series definitely doesn't portray the government as a force for good, or even a significant player. "Politics is for puppets." "We voted for this, not with our rigged elections..." "I'm talking about the guys no one knows about, the guys who play God without asking permission..."
mindslight 10y ago
As someone who believes in free markets and voluntary exchange, the ethos of Mr Robot resonates with me. I also haven't seen any love of big government (but I've only seen S01). When government is continually debasing money through forced inflation, it's not surprising that people develop a distaste for money itself. Rather than functioning as a virtuous representation of value creation, inflating money just represents political connection to the central bank. Rather than being able to build up savings to gain security and negotiating power, the common person's primary interaction with money is having to service the debt driving their wage-slavery. If you believe in free markets, you should want to make money sound again. Writing off people's rational distaste for the role money is presently playing just allows the fundamental problem to continue growing.
- cheald 10y ago
  If you believe in rational markets, you should also probably consider that those rational markets are capable of pricing stable inflation into nominal pricing. Consider that money is widely accepted to be neutral in the long-run. In inflationary economies, there is nothing stopping individuals from saving value in the form of assets; you can store your value in pork bellies or gold or ownership of a company or whatever other asset you'd like, in order to build up savings to gain security and negotiating power. The oft-repeated idea that inflation precludes saving is silly; it does make it costly to save by stuffing your dollars into a mattress, but it would still hold true in an economy without managed inflation - such economies are still subject to inflation and deflation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_A...) so if you need to actually spend your money during one of those 20% inflation spikes, well, good luck with that. Store your value in an asset rather than a medium of exchange and managed inflation is a tremendous boon thanks to its tendency to decrease the risk (and thus cost) of investment.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Even rational markets do not respond immediately or frictionlessly. And I wouldn't call a market where one sector gets a steady inflow of newly-created money "rational". The disconnect in your analysis is that price inflation hits hardest the areas where the conjured money is injected into the wider economy. Saving in gold works to pay for food, but not to pay for housing. To keep up with the latter, you must invest in housing to cover the entirety of your consumption. Until you achieve that, you're over the barrel servicing debt. This encourages everybody into further helping to inflate that bubble, with those who've succeeded then lobbying for even more housing inflation.
initram 10y ago
Can you explain what you mean by "loving big government?" I watched both season 1 and season 2 and never got anything like that impression. They spend quite a bit of time avoiding the government and using it as an unwitting tool against the corporation and later itself. I'm curious what you saw, because I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.
yetanotheracc 10y ago
> I'm a normal person and I don't have difficulties in dealing with other human beings. Then why are you so insecure about it?
pault 10y ago
> The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. I hate this so, so much. I enjoyed Orphan Black but the biologist character was just such a babbling idiot that I kept having to fight the urge to fast-forward through her scenes (I have to say though, the actress that plays the clones has a pretty amazing range. Not all of the characters are great but sometime I had to remind myself that it was the same person playing all the roles). This seems to have originated with the procedural crime dramas; the "geek tank" full of adult children that spout technobabble to eye-rolling detectives and are unable to communicate technical concepts to non-technical people. I have a few friends in research. None of them have lip rings or dreadlocks and they are all able to carry a conversation with people of diverse backgrounds and education.
eDameXxX 10y ago
>The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. This is probably the main reason why I love so much this series. FYI: I think I'm kind of a introvert person. I have small problems with myself. And yes, I am programmer.

dllthomas 10y ago

You should watch S02. The dorm-room philosophy of the protagonists is not handled uncritically.

k__ 10y ago
what? S02 takes the whole thing to another level...
jknoepfler 10y ago
This is probably the reason I'm willing to watch the show. The writing is pleasantly, surprisingly intelligent at times.

jonknee 10y ago

> The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. I'm a normal person and I don't have difficulties in dealing with other human beings. TV shows centered around normal people are really boring.

Unklejoe 10y ago
Except Seinfeld, of course.
- jonknee 10y ago
  If only my normal friends were comedians!
- wnevets 10y ago
  who was the normal one in Seinfeld?
  - Unklejoe 10y ago
    They all had their quirks, but overall, they were all meant to be relatable to in their own way. Of course, some were really out there (Kramer, Soup Nazi, etc...), but I think Jerry, George, and Elaine were all kind of normal. I believe that the show was so popular because many people saw connections between the characters and people they actually knew in real life. Compared to Mr. Robot, I would say that the characters in Seinfeld were far more normal. So maybe relatable doesn’t necessarily mean normal, but that’s what I was thinking.
    - wnevets 10y ago
      When the show started that was probably the case but as the seasons went on they became cartoon characters. I believe the finale was to show just how awful they and their actions were.
      - Unklejoe 10y ago
        Yeah true. It seems like that's the trend for a lot of shows. The events and characters keep getting more and more ridiculous. I guess they have to keep introducing new things to keep the show interesting. I think it’s starting to happen with Mr. Robot already. I liked season 1 a lot, but I’m not as big of a fan of season 2. I think they’re going too far with the whole “delusional acid trip” kind of thing.
- dikaiosune 10y ago
  Are normal people actually that mean and uncaring? It's not been my personal experience.
  - Unklejoe 10y ago
    Well, I think the answer to that is going to vary a lot based on the personal experiences of the person answering, so here's my take: I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s been my personal experience that many groups of friends partake in “shit talking” or “gossiping” when no one is around. This leads me to believe that many people can be uncaring behind closed doors (which is what I think Seinfeld was meant to show, and which is why many people could relate to the show).
  - bcholmes 10y ago
    Isn't "mean" a synonym for "average"? :)
colmvp 10y ago
I think though there's a difference between cliche/stereotyped characters and whether or not a character is interesting .
- okwhatthe2 10y ago
  It seems OP was referencing a cliché trope as opposed to cliché character.

libertymcateer 10y ago

> about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. > vilifying companies and loving big government is not my cup of tea > vilifying money as a medium of exchange is just absurd You should watch season 2. All of the above are directly addressed.

bitwize 10y ago

For some reason hacker fiction became less interesting when the stereotype went from "hip awesome dude who skateboards to class" to "depressed guy in a gray hoodie". I chose the former when it came time to design a protagonist for my totally unrealistic hacking-themed mobile game.

the_watcher 10y ago

Elliott isn't good with people. The owner of the firm is. Like all professions, IT contains people who struggle socially and those who do not. > Also the part about vilifying companies and loving big government is not my cup of tea. Watch Season 2 before you make any judgments on who the bad guys actually are.

s_q_b 10y ago

The series definitely doesn't portray the government as a force for good, or even a significant player. "Politics is for puppets." "We voted for this, not with our rigged elections..." "I'm talking about the guys no one knows about, the guys who play God without asking permission..."

mindslight 10y ago

As someone who believes in free markets and voluntary exchange, the ethos of Mr Robot resonates with me. I also haven't seen any love of big government (but I've only seen S01). When government is continually debasing money through forced inflation, it's not surprising that people develop a distaste for money itself. Rather than functioning as a virtuous representation of value creation, inflating money just represents political connection to the central bank. Rather than being able to build up savings to gain security and negotiating power, the common person's primary interaction with money is having to service the debt driving their wage-slavery. If you believe in free markets, you should want to make money sound again. Writing off people's rational distaste for the role money is presently playing just allows the fundamental problem to continue growing.

cheald 10y ago
If you believe in rational markets, you should also probably consider that those rational markets are capable of pricing stable inflation into nominal pricing. Consider that money is widely accepted to be neutral in the long-run. In inflationary economies, there is nothing stopping individuals from saving value in the form of assets; you can store your value in pork bellies or gold or ownership of a company or whatever other asset you'd like, in order to build up savings to gain security and negotiating power. The oft-repeated idea that inflation precludes saving is silly; it does make it costly to save by stuffing your dollars into a mattress, but it would still hold true in an economy without managed inflation - such economies are still subject to inflation and deflation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_A...) so if you need to actually spend your money during one of those 20% inflation spikes, well, good luck with that. Store your value in an asset rather than a medium of exchange and managed inflation is a tremendous boon thanks to its tendency to decrease the risk (and thus cost) of investment.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Even rational markets do not respond immediately or frictionlessly. And I wouldn't call a market where one sector gets a steady inflow of newly-created money "rational". The disconnect in your analysis is that price inflation hits hardest the areas where the conjured money is injected into the wider economy. Saving in gold works to pay for food, but not to pay for housing. To keep up with the latter, you must invest in housing to cover the entirety of your consumption. Until you achieve that, you're over the barrel servicing debt. This encourages everybody into further helping to inflate that bubble, with those who've succeeded then lobbying for even more housing inflation.

initram 10y ago

Can you explain what you mean by "loving big government?" I watched both season 1 and season 2 and never got anything like that impression. They spend quite a bit of time avoiding the government and using it as an unwitting tool against the corporation and later itself. I'm curious what you saw, because I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.

yetanotheracc 10y ago

> I'm a normal person and I don't have difficulties in dealing with other human beings. Then why are you so insecure about it?

pault 10y ago

> The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. I hate this so, so much. I enjoyed Orphan Black but the biologist character was just such a babbling idiot that I kept having to fight the urge to fast-forward through her scenes (I have to say though, the actress that plays the clones has a pretty amazing range. Not all of the characters are great but sometime I had to remind myself that it was the same person playing all the roles). This seems to have originated with the procedural crime dramas; the "geek tank" full of adult children that spout technobabble to eye-rolling detectives and are unable to communicate technical concepts to non-technical people. I have a few friends in research. None of them have lip rings or dreadlocks and they are all able to carry a conversation with people of diverse backgrounds and education.

eDameXxX 10y ago

>The cliché about dysfunctional people in IT is too much for me. This is probably the main reason why I love so much this series. FYI: I think I'm kind of a introvert person. I have small problems with myself. And yes, I am programmer.