Proving that the Netflix execs don't have the foggiest fucking idea what they're doing.
You gain viewers by engaging them - by giving them something so interesting that they can't be distracted.
If you dumb everything down, the most likely outcome is that rather than looking at their phones in addition to your show, they look at their phones instead of your show.
I see a good amount of idiocracy, but more what I see is... let's call it "lunaticracy." It's not just that a significant number of powerful and influential people (and their sycophants) aren't smart - they aren't even sane.
On the first internet forum on which I spent time, in the mid- to late-90s, there was one poster who was egregiously intellectually dishonest - who regularly resorted to strawmen and ad hominems and non sequiturs and red herrings and so on, and essentially never engaged honestly. And it was so notable that his username became the forum slang term for those sorts of tactics.
Between then and now, those tactics have gone from the exception to the rule.
That that's a "guiding principle" doesn't even begin to imply that it's something in which people actually engage.
Now that you mention it though, I'd say that it's plainly obvious that tankies fail specifically by not engaging in criticism and instead engaging in apologetics. They stubbornly and often even angrily avoid even facing, much less analyzing, the inherent issues with state "communism" and instead dedicate their time and effort to making excuses for and distracting from any and all examples of those inherent issues.
I think it’s also in large part due to the human tendency to simplify reality. Reality is often complex, but we prefer to thing in categories, like black and white. And so you often see people thinking in or blindly accepting false binaries. Side A bad, so side B bad.
Agreed.
Nuance is difficult, and arguably more to the point, it's sort of vague and insubstantial, not least because an awful lot of it necessariky boils down to "I don't know." People generally prefer something more solid to which to cling, so tend toward absolutes and unjustified certainties. And the most attractive ones are binaristic, because then you don't even have to provide support for your claimed position - all you have to do is find fault with the (generally falsely dichotomous) alternative.
As a couple of poster here are already demonstrating, they discover that western nations have lied about communist nations, but they don't learn the more fundamental lesson that they shouldn't trust everything a nation says. So instead of adopting a nuanced view, they just counter believing everything a western nation says with rejecting everything a western nation says and instead believing everything a communist nation says.
Just driving home the fact that the President of the United States is a deranged lunatic with the emotional development of a toddler and an ego that's so grossly inflated ¡that it's stretched as thin and fragile as tissue.
No "probe" is even necessary. We watched (though only some of us paid attention) as, for instance, the tech moguls all lined up to give Trump money for his inauguration, then were immediately rewarded with beneficial rulings from newly DOGEified agencies. Or as CBS agreed to a "settlement" on a Trump suit that legal experts widely predicted would be summarily dismissed if it ever went to trial, and were immediately rewarded with approval for their Skydance merger.
Trump isn't merely corrupt - he's overtly and brazenly corrupt. He's corrupt right out in the open, for all to see.
And as with everything else about this deranged lunatic who's weaseled his way into American politics, the real question is whether anyone is going to do anything about it.
Like a big neon sign that says "I am a psychopath."