I don't disagree with your point of view, nor do I consider mine to be the truth.

Cinema is art, and some people see it one way, others another. I didn't intend to argue with that.

The purpose of this post was rather to offer a new lens. If it's not new/offers nothing interesting/is empty, then that may be true for some and not for others. And it doesn't even matter who is in the majority.

Once, as a student, I went to an art exhibition. I looked at the drawings on the walls and, confused, asked my companion, "Where's the art here? (It was just some scribbled mess.)" She replied, "Look at this painting, then step away, look again. Do you feel anything?"
I replied that I felt indignation. "Then the artist achieved his goal—he evoked emotion in you," she replied.

1. The majority of screen time in such "masterpieces" is dedicated to the aestheticization and heroization of the sinner; the moral justification of atrocities. — Astorre

I think this is very much a part of our human nature. We have a long-standing fascination with criminals, especially the old western outlaws. Some of them are very charismatic. AI gives an excellent explanation of this and a possible difference between what attracts a man to an outlaw versus what attracts a woman. The woman is more apt to have romantic notions. While the man may be attracted to the ability to get whatever one wants. I both enjoy the idea of escaping their boring lives.

However, I would like to point out that a person does not need a college education to make meth. The recipe is out there, and any thug can get it. Lye is used for cleaning drains, and it is one of the ingredients for meth. We might be attracted to the man making meth to support his family. But let us hope he is not cooking it at home because of the high risks of fire, explosions, and exposure to hazardous fumes. TIf the home is a rental, the owner of the home stands to lose it because it will be declared uninhabitable, and the owner will have to hire experts to clean the house and then test it to prove it is safe. May I suggest that the average meth manufacturer is not attractive to anyone who knows the reality? I am not sure of the morality of making this person attractive, but at least you said the show dealt with some of the drawbacks of getting caught up in a drama that takes on a life of its own.

Back to criminals we love, I think Robin Hood is a favorite, dating back to the 14th century. Bank robbers and the mafia have been loved for their Robin Hood behaviors. While law-abiding bankers have been hated.

They showed a madman and warned: "Don't be like him."
B.B. shows a madman and whispers: "Be like him, only smarter—and everything will be fine." — Astorre

Wow, I like your reply!

Calling someone naive is calling someone incorrect or ignorant of things you deem yourself as being correct or knowledgeable of or about. — Outlander


No doubt, but then you added:

You're calling them wrong, essentially, which is putting into question not just every single act or non-act they've ever engaged in or disengaged in in the entirety of their life, but their entire life worth altogether (ie. "the meaning of life" itself). — Outlander


Which is completely nonsensical. — Tzeentch

Intelligent beings have a habit to be inclined to correct themself when given reason to. Social intelligent beings consider public opinion as a valid reason due to the fact group or family oriented societies are the only ones that have survived to this day and age. Sure, the average person shakes off the average passing comment, but that doesn't change the nature of the opinion the mind has a natural tendency to consider, at least for a moment and perhaps unconsciously, as a possible fact.

At this point we're just calling science nonsense. Which I can respect, for those who provide sufficient reason, which you have yet to.

Whether your beliefs and judgements proliferate themself in your mind due to resiliency, or perhaps ignorance, they nonetheless do independent of a larger fact or reason, not including cognitive bias, the brain likes to be right and will see things it enjoys (pattern recognition) to support this homeostasis. However, this is simply not relevant when it comes to actual analysis of the world outside our own head.

This means you find the normal pattern of possible evidence introduced into a situation or dynamic followed by reasonable analysis and consideration of such as "completely nonsensical" . This is the thought process of dogmatist. Can you not step outside your personal sphere (no matter how many people echo or embrace it, or how valuable it seems, or possibly may actually be to, you) for a moment to see the larger picture that the majority of people hold and follow?

Accusing me of getting personal when you interpret being called wrong as a rejection of all that was and ever will be of your person - is a bit rich.

What rock have you been living under that let you get away with such snowflakeism? Uni?

Anyway, have the last word if you insist. This is obviously a pointless conversation.

You're calling them wrong, essentially, which is putting into question not just every single act or non-act they've ever engaged in or disengaged in in the entirety of their life, but their entire life worth altogether (ie. "the meaning of life" itself).
— Outlander

Which is completely nonsensical. — Tzeentch

It's, literally, what "You're wrong" means. Language allows us to clearly distinguish between calling a particular person's particular action "wrong" (or "right" or whatever), and calling the person "wrong".
Yet few people avail themselves to this distinction and usually prefer the complete and absolute dismissal of the person, rather than merely their action(s).

You've hit the nail on the head: modern culture gives us the opportunity to rethink everything. Actually, that's exactly what I wanted to say: be morally gray, because you determine your own destiny.

But has the time come when we (humanity) are ready to admit this?

Won't this usher in a "moral decline" we can't even imagine? — Astorre

Why are you worried about a "moral decline"? Because you in particular might not have very good chances of survival when other people morally decline?

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" seems to be the words of a fool in your eyes, no?
— Outlander

When dealing with ordinary people it works fine. When dealing with criminals or politicians, it does not. — Tzeentch

That's right. When talking about career criminals, there isn't nearly enough talk about politicians.
There is a whole category of people who literally get away with mass murder, and it's not even a television show!! And millions love them and adore them and want to be like them!!

Television shows that focus on smalltime criminals are really just distractions from the more relevant criminals.

Generally speaking, identifying the source of an author's problems always leads to greater understanding of the problem they're writing about. But my personal anxiety isn't quite at that level. I believe I'm quite adaptive (as presumptuous as that may sound). My anxiety stems from a kind of resentment toward the time I found myself in. However, this is precisely a scholarly reflection, and publishing this view is likely an attempt to find like-minded people, or at least those who can convincingly point out the error of my judgment.