8 ms·

Sorry, but you're already living in the “Squid Game”

45 points by one2three4 5y ago

kortilla 5y ago
[flagged]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 5y ago
Yes I took the squid game message to be “we’re gonna shock you with all this gore but at the end of the day it’s not far from real life. Well maybe not for you as you are rich… after all you can afford to watch this”
- hayanno 5y ago
  Remind me of Black Mirror on that point.
hayanno 5y ago
A bit off-topic but : ‘Arcane’ knocks ‘Squid Game’ off the top of Netflix’s most-watched chart https://www.nme.com/news/tv/arcane-knocks-squid-game-off-top-of-netflix-most-watched-chart-3092784 https://www.nme.com/news/tv/arcane-knocks-squid-game-off-top...
0x_rs 5y ago
I don't see the appeal of this show. It's a prepackaged, shallow production that adds little to the actual works it undoubtedly inspires and gets much from, FKMT's manga.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  It's fun, it's well produced, the acting is decent, the children's games add a fun twist. It's a great way to spend a couple of hours over the weekend. And it's way, way better than most of the stuff that gets released on Netflix. Not every movie has to be a work of art with a truly original story. If that were the case, non of the most successful movies of the past decade(s) should really exist.
- agent008t 5y ago
  The interesting thing to me is its popularity. Back in 2007, the same people that are now singing praises to SG would not have looked twice at Kaiji. In fact, I bet that had SG not been popular, the very same people would not watch it or allow themselves to enjoy it. In other words, it seems to me that it first had to be publicly announced as 'popular', before people would consider watching it thus actually making it popular.
  - donkeyd 5y ago
    > Back in 2007 Back in 2007, Netflix wasn't a globally available streaming service and they were still sending out DVDs. > would not have looked twice at Kaiji I still wouldn't, it's a cartoon, I'm not into cartoons. > it first had to be publicly announced as 'popular' I didn't figure out it was popular until after I finished watching the show. Meanwhile, while watching the show, I was telling all my friends about how much I liked it and recommended it to them. Your comment reeks of "I have superior taste and people who watch Squid Game are sheep". Just accept that some people might just really like this show while not being interested in the Manga you enjoy.
    - agent008t 5y ago
      It is more of a lamentation of the fact that people's opinions of things are significantly affected by the perceived popularity of those things. I guess the benign explanation is that people are more likely to invest time into something that is recommended by many people they believe they have a lot in common with, but I think it runs deeper than that. I suspect it applies to a significantly lesser degree to the HN audience, who know well that unpopular things can be well worth investing the time into and so for whom popularity is less of a useful metric; if anything, popular things tend to appeal to the lower common denominator and so popularity is often a negative indicator.
      - donkeyd 5y ago
        > and so popularity is often a negative indicator And that's what bothers me so much about those types of people, disliking because something is popular and then thinking that's better than liking something because it's popular. They're just doing the same thing, but they're following a different crowd. A more negative, gate keeping crowd at that. I've never liked Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones was popular. Those things are separate facts and I will never go on the internet to tell people that Game of Thrones was bad because there's some obscure book or movie that might have some resemblance to the story line. I just didn't like it, I ignore it and enjoy the things I do like. It's really that simple.
- rvz 5y ago
  Yes. Basically it is a re-branded, re-heated and re-packaged entertainment version of today's rat race. Unfortunately, lots of people are just easily impressed by what influencers are watching or what is 'trending' these days. So they follow the hype squad around; like sheep. It is great for Netflix's business since they have a successful hit, but count me out of the hype squad; since I simply cut through the hype.
  - nnoitra 5y ago
    No, it is not. It is objectively good. Tons of people have tried to make films like that and have failed. It's not a matter of rehashing the same old ideas and hopefully the writer hits the lottery and can enjoy never ending days on the beach.
    - rvz 5y ago
      > No, it is not. It is objectively good. What is so objective about an opinion? > Tons of people have tried to make films like that and have failed. So Black Mirror has 'failed' successfully. /s
timonoko 5y ago
Worse. In this game they do not give head shot, but only immobilize and then drag you into some hole to slowly rot to death.
miguelmurca 5y ago
To be completely honest I don't understand the appeal of Squid Game. It's a very thin metaphor around super shocking imagery --- and don't get me wrong, although it's not my thing, I can understand people liking slasher movies and the like, but I don't understand why this discourse that Squid Game is very deep (and anything other than cheap gore horror) became so popular.
- helloooooooo 5y ago
  … because some people found it entertaining
- dagw 5y ago
  I don't understand the appeal of Squid Game. It's a very thin metaphor around super shocking imagery Sounds to me like you understand the appeal of Squid Game perfectly :) Squid Game is very deep I don't think many people are saying that Squid Game itself is very deep, rather that it seems to work as a catalyst for many to have deeper conversations about these topics that they haven't really been having before.
- nnoitra 5y ago
  The acting is superb, I really have not seen a single actor fail to deliver. They are all shocked beyond reason given the circumstances. It's like watching what would happen in real life. It has high realism precisely because not everyone believes in a dog eat dog world. There are those that sacrifice themselves to save someone else. The immigrant that believes he is inferior simply because he came to the land and you have genuine human elements come to the surface even in the brutal world. It doesn't lose a second on pointless discussions. It just starts strong and goes on and on until the very end. Substance all the way through. It's not just gore for the sake of gore or for shock value.
  - silvester23 5y ago
    > The acting is superb, I really have not seen a single actor fail to deliver. Have you seen the episode with the VIPs? They are terrible across the board. Their delivery sounds like NPC background dialogue from a third-rate low-budget video game.
bjornsing 5y ago
Meritocracy is definitely under attack. Another Netflix show with a similar message is “3%”.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  Meritocracy as we imagined it never worked. We just deluded ourselves into thinking we all have a chance, but we deeply know that's not true.
- __alexs 5y ago
  > Meritocracy is definitely under attack. Meritocracy is an attack on capitalism. Read the book.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Whenever someone tells me to read a book they refuse to summarise, I assume they've been the victim of a successful hypnotist.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lexapro 5y ago
  Plutocracy is under attack, not meritocracy.
- BrianOnHN 5y ago
  "What free trade did to blue collar jobs, remote work will do to white collar jobs." [1] If Naval is right, then that will make America the same as the "Offshore" in "3%"... [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/naval/status/1463388121710481410 https://mobile.twitter.com/naval/status/1463388121710481410
idonotknowwhy 5y ago
Meh Squid Game borrowed heavily from GANTZ
- kiba 5y ago
  Squid Game has its origin battle royale genre, in which you are ultimately competing with everyone. While Gantz rewards only individual players, it is not a battle royale. Teammwork is basically essential for survival.
- forgotmyoldname 5y ago
  And Kaiji and a few other manga/anime.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  What's with the hate of borrowing concepts from other shows? By that standard I haven't really seen much of a real original concept in the last couple of decades.
boppo1 5y ago
I enjoyed squid game, but it bugs me that everyone says it's a critique of capitalism. They're literally participating in a centrally planned system.
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  Just read the interview with the author: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-games-creator-rich-netflix-bonus-hwang-dong-hyuk https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g... It is 100% a critique on capitalism and he states it clearly.
- McBeige 5y ago
  Isn't inequality or competition for basic needs, and how those can lead to terrible outcomes, a better starting point if you want to come up with an ancap interpretation? I don't think the series says much about central vs local planning, and even if it did that'd only be tangentially related to capitalism or anti-capitalism.
- MildlySerious 5y ago
  Out of desperation and lack of options, yes. Then they are shown the horrible nature of it and still decide it's the least bad thing for them.
  - vowelless 5y ago
    Lol absolutely not. They participate out of free choice. Its a warning that people could choose to participate in a centralized, communist totalitarian system if they are encouraged to do so. It reminds us of the communist revolutions from the early 1900s and a lot of the leftist rhetoric from today.
    - MildlySerious 5y ago
      > Why did Hwang create a horrifyingly brutal contest that holds human life so cheap? “Because the show is motivated by a simple idea,” he says. “We are fighting for our lives in very unequal circumstances.” Are you making a profound point about capitalism? “It’s not profound! It’s very simple! I do believe that the overall global economic order is unequal and that around 90% of the people believe that it’s unfair. During the pandemic, poorer countries can’t get their people vaccinated. They’re contracting viruses on the streets and even dying. So I did try to convey a message about modern capitalism. As I said, it’s not profound.”[1] The director begs to differ. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-games-creator-rich-netflix-bonus-hwang-dong-hyuk https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g...
Smithalicious 5y ago
I can never not think about Splatoon when I read "Squid Game"
mountainb 5y ago
Yeah all these waves of enthusiasm for a show just wash over me. I have ignored every one of them in recent decades. It has never harmed me socially to be utterly unaware of the details of the latest Mad Tiger Squid Soprano.
- djbusby 5y ago
  Did you skip The Wire? That show was amazing.
  - mountainb 5y ago
    Yeah I did!
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Congratulations! And thank you for the creative neologisms!
mandmandam 5y ago
Though I've seen it a hundred and more times, I'm always a little surprised to see this community completely miss the point of artistic works that challenge inequality. Y'all seem to think that we're in some kind of meritocracy, that predatory capitalism isn't centrally planned, that you earned your position in society and so everyone who's poor just isn't working hard or smart enough... And even after watching a show that makes the point in as simplistic a metaphor as you could wish for; even after reading an article that breaks the metaphor down precisely and makes it abundantly clear, there's still people in this thread saying "I don't understand the appeal", "it's just brutality and shock value", "if you can watch this you're rich and who it's aimed at", "pfft, this is a ripoff of [obscure manga]"... How can smart people miss the point so completely? It's simple, but still surprises me almost every time - "“Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.”
- subjectsigma 5y ago
  You're conflating different people's comments. From reading the thread, people expressing opinions described in your second paragraph are not also expressing opinions described in your third paragraph. The show can have a good message and also have bad writing/be derivative/etc.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > Y'all seem to think that we're in some kind of meritocracy, that predatory capitalism isn't centrally planned, that you earned your position in society and so everyone who's poor just isn't working hard or smart enough... Not everything is perfect, but we're not living in a dictatorship yet. Sure, some poor people don't have a chance and the closer you are to money, the easier it gets, but it's not like it's all on the system. There are also quite a few capitalist countries other than the US, with less problems. > there's still people in this thread saying "I don't understand the appeal", "it's just brutality and shock value", "if you can watch this you're rich and who it's aimed at", "pfft, this is a ripoff of [obscure manga]"... I agree that squid game can be interpreted that way. But let's be real here, there's massive amounts of gore in there and it's portrayed extensively, far beyond where it would be necessary to make a point. And I'm pretty sure that a lot of people watch it mostly for that and for the crime story, not the implied portrayal of society. You can see it in there, but squid game is mass market first, social critique second.
wodenokoto 5y ago
Article is full of spoilers, if you haven't watched it to completetion yet.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tomxor 5y ago
> Meritocracy is a fallacious idea – a convenient lie told to those whose lack of wealth or social class leaves them at a distinct disadvantage. This is a bit oversimplified. Meritocracy is not an outright fallacious idea, but depending on the subject, there is a certain threshold of opportunity above which it becomes the dominant force, and for many that threshold is out of reach. For instance, learning to program is fairly "accessible" today, but even it has certain minimum requirements, a threshold of opportunity above which the playground becomes more equal: You need a computer, internet access, enough free time... eventually you need a job. The one that really generalises against meritocracy is "you need free time", because most of the world is fighting for their next paycheck and are not in a position to attempt to improve their life. I believe this is what the author is getting at, wealth and "social class" are just an indirect way of saying "the freedom to pursue more opportunities". However throwing out meritocracy completely is not the solution to this, if replaced with ideas revolving around inclusivity and equality alone it will fall apart - meritocracy is part of equality, it's just not all of it, it doesn't automatically solve equal opportunity... And this is where I think the author is missing the point: the world, society, government does little to ensure equal opportunity - This is the point squid game is making, everyone starts equal unlike reality.
- kiba 5y ago
  Meritocracy is a friend of disadvantaged people, really? Merit reward merits. It's advantage compounding on advantage, whether that's luck, gene, talent, or just good environments and good parents. You win, then you can then plow that back into winning more. A meritocracy is inherently a society of elite. It is not egalitarian.
  - tomxor 5y ago
    > whether that's luck, gene, talent, or just good environments and good parents. You win You are conflating the very two things i am trying to distinguish here... luck, good environment, good parents are all opportunities. Talent is something you earn with hard work, passion, effort, and yes is compounded and encouraged by merit, but can only do so given the opportunity. If society does not reward these things it falls apart, if a business does not reward these things, poorly qualified people end up making things, passionate people end up demotivated and stop improving, dispassionate or incompetent people produce rubbish without improving, nothing good comes out of this. Many people suggest the merit is all that's needed, and that's not true, you need both. Honest insightful and successful people recognise how important opportunity was in their success, and when the world is viewed with this perspective you realise meritocracy is not enough - but being insufficient does not automatically make it bad. [edit] for clarity, I more delicately rephrased the part the parent quoted before they posted their reply, but I did say that: > Meritocracy is a friend of disadvantaged people
subjectsigma 5y ago
This is pure anecdata and somewhat tangential to the article, but - I had multiple conversations, distinct from each other and completely unprompted, where people said they thought the hype for this show was manufactured. One person in particular said Reddit felt like someone "flipped a switch" and suddenly everything was Squid Game for a week. At first I didn't see it but after the Nth article breathlessly repeating the same points about the show's message one does wonder.
ahdh8f4hf4h8 5y ago
Meritocracy exists on a small scale, but always remember that someone wrote the rules, and they generally have an opinion on the outcome. The best moment of the show was when they changed the rules of the glass jumping game after someone figured out a trick to win. Basically the whole RobinHood/GMC debacle. Only approved parties get to manipulate the market. Most of us are on the winning side of the game right now - central banks have dumped a ton of money into investments and banking, software has very low marginal cost at scale, and companies can be unprofitable for decades if they have a good story. Big Tech has also been immune to regulation and taxes. If the regulatory/legal space or the market want ROI now, then many of us may be the losers in the next round of our economic Squid Game.
nnoitra 5y ago
Art imitates life. Squid Game is very deep. The reason is that it doesn't allow for the initial knee-jerk reaction that the poor are virtious and are simply crushed beneath the wheel of the powerful and the rich. The main character is a gambler that lives off of the back of his mother. This can be blamed both of his own shortcomings and that of society. At the end of the show it is proven yet again that he is a gambler in heart when he chooses to play the last game with the mastermind of the game instead of going out and helping the freezing homeless person. On top of that, he hoards the money and sits on it for a year instead of helping the victims' families. This can hardly be blamed on society or on the rich. Dog eat dog world assumption really doesn't work in Squid Game. Here's why. Being a woman and old is disadvantegous. Yet the team chooses two women and old man for the tug of war competition. If this is not downright irrationality I don't know what is. Yet the little compassion that they muster during life and death situation ends up being their ticket towards survival. This imitates real life where even the morally worst will do something to save someone just to prove to themselves that they are not that far gone. In the following game the main character again chooses the old man who most likely would've been left off to die. Yet again this small compassion brings him a victory as the old man simply gives him the marbles because they are friends and friends share everything. So yeah squid game imitates life but that's not really pessimistic because it contains both the beautiful and horrible aspects of human nature.

45 points by one2three4 5y ago

kortilla 5y ago

[flagged]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quickthrower2 5y ago

Yes I took the squid game message to be “we’re gonna shock you with all this gore but at the end of the day it’s not far from real life. Well maybe not for you as you are rich… after all you can afford to watch this”

hayanno 5y ago
Remind me of Black Mirror on that point.

hayanno 5y ago

A bit off-topic but : ‘Arcane’ knocks ‘Squid Game’ off the top of Netflix’s most-watched chart https://www.nme.com/news/tv/arcane-knocks-squid-game-off-top-of-netflix-most-watched-chart-3092784 https://www.nme.com/news/tv/arcane-knocks-squid-game-off-top...

0x_rs 5y ago

I don't see the appeal of this show. It's a prepackaged, shallow production that adds little to the actual works it undoubtedly inspires and gets much from, FKMT's manga.

donkeyd 5y ago
It's fun, it's well produced, the acting is decent, the children's games add a fun twist. It's a great way to spend a couple of hours over the weekend. And it's way, way better than most of the stuff that gets released on Netflix. Not every movie has to be a work of art with a truly original story. If that were the case, non of the most successful movies of the past decade(s) should really exist.
agent008t 5y ago
The interesting thing to me is its popularity. Back in 2007, the same people that are now singing praises to SG would not have looked twice at Kaiji. In fact, I bet that had SG not been popular, the very same people would not watch it or allow themselves to enjoy it. In other words, it seems to me that it first had to be publicly announced as 'popular', before people would consider watching it thus actually making it popular.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  > Back in 2007 Back in 2007, Netflix wasn't a globally available streaming service and they were still sending out DVDs. > would not have looked twice at Kaiji I still wouldn't, it's a cartoon, I'm not into cartoons. > it first had to be publicly announced as 'popular' I didn't figure out it was popular until after I finished watching the show. Meanwhile, while watching the show, I was telling all my friends about how much I liked it and recommended it to them. Your comment reeks of "I have superior taste and people who watch Squid Game are sheep". Just accept that some people might just really like this show while not being interested in the Manga you enjoy.
  - agent008t 5y ago
    It is more of a lamentation of the fact that people's opinions of things are significantly affected by the perceived popularity of those things. I guess the benign explanation is that people are more likely to invest time into something that is recommended by many people they believe they have a lot in common with, but I think it runs deeper than that. I suspect it applies to a significantly lesser degree to the HN audience, who know well that unpopular things can be well worth investing the time into and so for whom popularity is less of a useful metric; if anything, popular things tend to appeal to the lower common denominator and so popularity is often a negative indicator.
    - donkeyd 5y ago
      > and so popularity is often a negative indicator And that's what bothers me so much about those types of people, disliking because something is popular and then thinking that's better than liking something because it's popular. They're just doing the same thing, but they're following a different crowd. A more negative, gate keeping crowd at that. I've never liked Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones was popular. Those things are separate facts and I will never go on the internet to tell people that Game of Thrones was bad because there's some obscure book or movie that might have some resemblance to the story line. I just didn't like it, I ignore it and enjoy the things I do like. It's really that simple.
rvz 5y ago
Yes. Basically it is a re-branded, re-heated and re-packaged entertainment version of today's rat race. Unfortunately, lots of people are just easily impressed by what influencers are watching or what is 'trending' these days. So they follow the hype squad around; like sheep. It is great for Netflix's business since they have a successful hit, but count me out of the hype squad; since I simply cut through the hype.
- nnoitra 5y ago
  No, it is not. It is objectively good. Tons of people have tried to make films like that and have failed. It's not a matter of rehashing the same old ideas and hopefully the writer hits the lottery and can enjoy never ending days on the beach.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > No, it is not. It is objectively good. What is so objective about an opinion? > Tons of people have tried to make films like that and have failed. So Black Mirror has 'failed' successfully. /s

timonoko 5y ago

Worse. In this game they do not give head shot, but only immobilize and then drag you into some hole to slowly rot to death.

miguelmurca 5y ago

To be completely honest I don't understand the appeal of Squid Game. It's a very thin metaphor around super shocking imagery --- and don't get me wrong, although it's not my thing, I can understand people liking slasher movies and the like, but I don't understand why this discourse that Squid Game is very deep (and anything other than cheap gore horror) became so popular.

helloooooooo 5y ago
… because some people found it entertaining
dagw 5y ago
I don't understand the appeal of Squid Game. It's a very thin metaphor around super shocking imagery Sounds to me like you understand the appeal of Squid Game perfectly :) Squid Game is very deep I don't think many people are saying that Squid Game itself is very deep, rather that it seems to work as a catalyst for many to have deeper conversations about these topics that they haven't really been having before.
nnoitra 5y ago
The acting is superb, I really have not seen a single actor fail to deliver. They are all shocked beyond reason given the circumstances. It's like watching what would happen in real life. It has high realism precisely because not everyone believes in a dog eat dog world. There are those that sacrifice themselves to save someone else. The immigrant that believes he is inferior simply because he came to the land and you have genuine human elements come to the surface even in the brutal world. It doesn't lose a second on pointless discussions. It just starts strong and goes on and on until the very end. Substance all the way through. It's not just gore for the sake of gore or for shock value.
- silvester23 5y ago
  > The acting is superb, I really have not seen a single actor fail to deliver. Have you seen the episode with the VIPs? They are terrible across the board. Their delivery sounds like NPC background dialogue from a third-rate low-budget video game.

bjornsing 5y ago

Meritocracy is definitely under attack. Another Netflix show with a similar message is “3%”.

pietrovismara 5y ago
Meritocracy as we imagined it never worked. We just deluded ourselves into thinking we all have a chance, but we deeply know that's not true.
__alexs 5y ago
> Meritocracy is definitely under attack. Meritocracy is an attack on capitalism. Read the book.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Whenever someone tells me to read a book they refuse to summarise, I assume they've been the victim of a successful hypnotist.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lexapro 5y ago
Plutocracy is under attack, not meritocracy.
BrianOnHN 5y ago
"What free trade did to blue collar jobs, remote work will do to white collar jobs." [1] If Naval is right, then that will make America the same as the "Offshore" in "3%"... [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/naval/status/1463388121710481410 https://mobile.twitter.com/naval/status/1463388121710481410

idonotknowwhy 5y ago

Meh Squid Game borrowed heavily from GANTZ

kiba 5y ago
Squid Game has its origin battle royale genre, in which you are ultimately competing with everyone. While Gantz rewards only individual players, it is not a battle royale. Teammwork is basically essential for survival.
forgotmyoldname 5y ago
And Kaiji and a few other manga/anime.
donkeyd 5y ago
What's with the hate of borrowing concepts from other shows? By that standard I haven't really seen much of a real original concept in the last couple of decades.

boppo1 5y ago

I enjoyed squid game, but it bugs me that everyone says it's a critique of capitalism. They're literally participating in a centrally planned system.

pastacacioepepe 5y ago
Just read the interview with the author: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-games-creator-rich-netflix-bonus-hwang-dong-hyuk https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g... It is 100% a critique on capitalism and he states it clearly.
McBeige 5y ago
Isn't inequality or competition for basic needs, and how those can lead to terrible outcomes, a better starting point if you want to come up with an ancap interpretation? I don't think the series says much about central vs local planning, and even if it did that'd only be tangentially related to capitalism or anti-capitalism.
MildlySerious 5y ago
Out of desperation and lack of options, yes. Then they are shown the horrible nature of it and still decide it's the least bad thing for them.
- vowelless 5y ago
  Lol absolutely not. They participate out of free choice. Its a warning that people could choose to participate in a centralized, communist totalitarian system if they are encouraged to do so. It reminds us of the communist revolutions from the early 1900s and a lot of the leftist rhetoric from today.
  - MildlySerious 5y ago
    > Why did Hwang create a horrifyingly brutal contest that holds human life so cheap? “Because the show is motivated by a simple idea,” he says. “We are fighting for our lives in very unequal circumstances.” Are you making a profound point about capitalism? “It’s not profound! It’s very simple! I do believe that the overall global economic order is unequal and that around 90% of the people believe that it’s unfair. During the pandemic, poorer countries can’t get their people vaccinated. They’re contracting viruses on the streets and even dying. So I did try to convey a message about modern capitalism. As I said, it’s not profound.”[1] The director begs to differ. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-games-creator-rich-netflix-bonus-hwang-dong-hyuk https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g...

Smithalicious 5y ago

I can never not think about Splatoon when I read "Squid Game"

mountainb 5y ago

Yeah all these waves of enthusiasm for a show just wash over me. I have ignored every one of them in recent decades. It has never harmed me socially to be utterly unaware of the details of the latest Mad Tiger Squid Soprano.

djbusby 5y ago
Did you skip The Wire? That show was amazing.
- mountainb 5y ago
  Yeah I did!
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Congratulations! And thank you for the creative neologisms!

mandmandam 5y ago

Though I've seen it a hundred and more times, I'm always a little surprised to see this community completely miss the point of artistic works that challenge inequality. Y'all seem to think that we're in some kind of meritocracy, that predatory capitalism isn't centrally planned, that you earned your position in society and so everyone who's poor just isn't working hard or smart enough... And even after watching a show that makes the point in as simplistic a metaphor as you could wish for; even after reading an article that breaks the metaphor down precisely and makes it abundantly clear, there's still people in this thread saying "I don't understand the appeal", "it's just brutality and shock value", "if you can watch this you're rich and who it's aimed at", "pfft, this is a ripoff of [obscure manga]"... How can smart people miss the point so completely? It's simple, but still surprises me almost every time - "“Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.”

subjectsigma 5y ago
You're conflating different people's comments. From reading the thread, people expressing opinions described in your second paragraph are not also expressing opinions described in your third paragraph. The show can have a good message and also have bad writing/be derivative/etc.
Sebb767 5y ago
> Y'all seem to think that we're in some kind of meritocracy, that predatory capitalism isn't centrally planned, that you earned your position in society and so everyone who's poor just isn't working hard or smart enough... Not everything is perfect, but we're not living in a dictatorship yet. Sure, some poor people don't have a chance and the closer you are to money, the easier it gets, but it's not like it's all on the system. There are also quite a few capitalist countries other than the US, with less problems. > there's still people in this thread saying "I don't understand the appeal", "it's just brutality and shock value", "if you can watch this you're rich and who it's aimed at", "pfft, this is a ripoff of [obscure manga]"... I agree that squid game can be interpreted that way. But let's be real here, there's massive amounts of gore in there and it's portrayed extensively, far beyond where it would be necessary to make a point. And I'm pretty sure that a lot of people watch it mostly for that and for the crime story, not the implied portrayal of society. You can see it in there, but squid game is mass market first, social critique second.

wodenokoto 5y ago

Article is full of spoilers, if you haven't watched it to completetion yet.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tomxor 5y ago

> Meritocracy is a fallacious idea – a convenient lie told to those whose lack of wealth or social class leaves them at a distinct disadvantage. This is a bit oversimplified. Meritocracy is not an outright fallacious idea, but depending on the subject, there is a certain threshold of opportunity above which it becomes the dominant force, and for many that threshold is out of reach. For instance, learning to program is fairly "accessible" today, but even it has certain minimum requirements, a threshold of opportunity above which the playground becomes more equal: You need a computer, internet access, enough free time... eventually you need a job. The one that really generalises against meritocracy is "you need free time", because most of the world is fighting for their next paycheck and are not in a position to attempt to improve their life. I believe this is what the author is getting at, wealth and "social class" are just an indirect way of saying "the freedom to pursue more opportunities". However throwing out meritocracy completely is not the solution to this, if replaced with ideas revolving around inclusivity and equality alone it will fall apart - meritocracy is part of equality, it's just not all of it, it doesn't automatically solve equal opportunity... And this is where I think the author is missing the point: the world, society, government does little to ensure equal opportunity - This is the point squid game is making, everyone starts equal unlike reality.

kiba 5y ago
Meritocracy is a friend of disadvantaged people, really? Merit reward merits. It's advantage compounding on advantage, whether that's luck, gene, talent, or just good environments and good parents. You win, then you can then plow that back into winning more. A meritocracy is inherently a society of elite. It is not egalitarian.
- tomxor 5y ago
  > whether that's luck, gene, talent, or just good environments and good parents. You win You are conflating the very two things i am trying to distinguish here... luck, good environment, good parents are all opportunities. Talent is something you earn with hard work, passion, effort, and yes is compounded and encouraged by merit, but can only do so given the opportunity. If society does not reward these things it falls apart, if a business does not reward these things, poorly qualified people end up making things, passionate people end up demotivated and stop improving, dispassionate or incompetent people produce rubbish without improving, nothing good comes out of this. Many people suggest the merit is all that's needed, and that's not true, you need both. Honest insightful and successful people recognise how important opportunity was in their success, and when the world is viewed with this perspective you realise meritocracy is not enough - but being insufficient does not automatically make it bad. [edit] for clarity, I more delicately rephrased the part the parent quoted before they posted their reply, but I did say that: > Meritocracy is a friend of disadvantaged people

subjectsigma 5y ago

This is pure anecdata and somewhat tangential to the article, but - I had multiple conversations, distinct from each other and completely unprompted, where people said they thought the hype for this show was manufactured. One person in particular said Reddit felt like someone "flipped a switch" and suddenly everything was Squid Game for a week. At first I didn't see it but after the Nth article breathlessly repeating the same points about the show's message one does wonder.

ahdh8f4hf4h8 5y ago

Meritocracy exists on a small scale, but always remember that someone wrote the rules, and they generally have an opinion on the outcome. The best moment of the show was when they changed the rules of the glass jumping game after someone figured out a trick to win. Basically the whole RobinHood/GMC debacle. Only approved parties get to manipulate the market. Most of us are on the winning side of the game right now - central banks have dumped a ton of money into investments and banking, software has very low marginal cost at scale, and companies can be unprofitable for decades if they have a good story. Big Tech has also been immune to regulation and taxes. If the regulatory/legal space or the market want ROI now, then many of us may be the losers in the next round of our economic Squid Game.

nnoitra 5y ago

Art imitates life. Squid Game is very deep. The reason is that it doesn't allow for the initial knee-jerk reaction that the poor are virtious and are simply crushed beneath the wheel of the powerful and the rich. The main character is a gambler that lives off of the back of his mother. This can be blamed both of his own shortcomings and that of society. At the end of the show it is proven yet again that he is a gambler in heart when he chooses to play the last game with the mastermind of the game instead of going out and helping the freezing homeless person. On top of that, he hoards the money and sits on it for a year instead of helping the victims' families. This can hardly be blamed on society or on the rich. Dog eat dog world assumption really doesn't work in Squid Game. Here's why. Being a woman and old is disadvantegous. Yet the team chooses two women and old man for the tug of war competition. If this is not downright irrationality I don't know what is. Yet the little compassion that they muster during life and death situation ends up being their ticket towards survival. This imitates real life where even the morally worst will do something to save someone just to prove to themselves that they are not that far gone. In the following game the main character again chooses the old man who most likely would've been left off to die. Yet again this small compassion brings him a victory as the old man simply gives him the marbles because they are friends and friends share everything. So yeah squid game imitates life but that's not really pessimistic because it contains both the beautiful and horrible aspects of human nature.