[krustyburger]

The notion that human malevolence is a recent enough development to have somehow been caused by this entity “Hollywood” is laughable on its face.

Are you under the impression that humans led some kind of Edenic existence before we started watching movies?

[alexfromapex]

I’m not claiming it as an origin of malevolence but definitely an amplifier by distributing and eliciting fascination with dark triad ideas to much larger swaths of the population

[krustyburger]

It seems to me that maybe you should try switching to watching better films before you condemn an entire industry full of creative people. I happened to come across this quote from the late Roger Ebert just now:

“If it’s a great movie, it lets you understand a little bit more about what it’s like to be a different gender, a different race, a different age, a different economic class, a different nationality, a different profession, different hopes, aspirations, dreams and fears. It helps us to identify with the people who are sharing this journey with us.”

There is no monolithic “Hollywood.” Suggesting not only that there is but that it has a nefarious agenda of some kind is an all-too common element of popular conspiracy theories and, frankly, an example of lazy thinking.

[alexfromapex]

It seems to me this is a straw man argument. Hollywood is merely metonymy.

[krustyburger]

I am not suggesting that you are under the impression that the film industry is only located in California. I’m sure you’re well aware that isn’t the case.

My point is that in reality all sorts of people make all sorts of films, many of which are valuable sources of inspiration and comfort for their audiences.

And yet despite this you are quite obviously engaging in a definist fallacy by suggesting that only those films and shows that bother you personally are representative and thus the entire film industry can be rightfully condemned.