if that is the future of dating apps, I'm in

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35043445)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35048508)

Would've been CR to do a slow burn and let the absurdity of the setting do more of the work. No jobs, no travel, no family, dudes with tasers...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35048895)

Wouldnt we get it in a heartbeat though as soon as the question is asked? We've come to expect this sort of thing from black mirror.

Still, I was willing to go along with it without the twist, thinking that must just be life in post AI world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35048915)

You barbarians have no aesthetic taste at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049183)

Please expand on these thoughts, if you're not afraid of embarrassing yourself further.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049200)

It's entirely believable that a bunch of sadists who self-select for such an event and have committed to certain rules would behave that way.

Further, even if you don't believe that, fiction is stylizied reality that purposely exaggerates important ideas in interesting ways, not a facsimile of reality

I mean, this is going to blow your mind, but people in movies don't talk at all like people in real life!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049279)

https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study

not the end all be all but what im saying is a defect in the premise was that people would be so mean as to allow such a horrible thing to happen day after day without intervention and simply as spectators. some percentage would--sure. But not all--not every day. and thats just an example of a defect i recognized in the plot line of that story. there are others but as i said im not going to watch it again. This may be post hoc based on my "gut" response to the episode, but what is "gut" response but IN PART the same reasoning but on an unconscious level.

Point of fact, white bear was childish in some respects. Not bad, and not uncommon, but its not of the same quality as the better, cleaner episodes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049380)

Put another way, your objection is that "well there would be some small problems with the premise if this happened in real life." But this tacitly lets the writers win, because you're acknowledging that such an evil, grotesque thing is only SLIGHTLY outside the realm of possibility. This is the point. "Haha this is stupid and entirely unrealistic, human nature is only evil enough to sustain 90% of that level of cruelty" is not really an objection to the writer's vision. If you have this thought, THE EPISODE WINS.

I mean, we never see the main character take a shit either. Does that bring you out of the experience, too?

See the essay I linked below for more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049479)

As a work of art, it fails. and it fails in part because it doesnt *know* human nature enough.

Its a fun silly ride, but there are other episodes that more closely approximate what it means to be human. more lasting significance, more intelligent and nuanced. I rank those higher.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049502)

Bullet point version: the criterion for good art is not how closely it mimics reality, even the reality of human nature. This is not to say that presenting compelling characters is not important, but that TELLING THE STORY is always the primary goal.

Fictional characters CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be clones of real people, their mannerisms, their beliefs, their behaviors, etc.

And again to reiterate: objecting that this episode is only 90% realistic means the writers accomplished exactly what they set out to do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049553)

In this dopey episode, there was never any pushback, day after day after day. And it had to be so, as a premise of the storyline. I don't think so...thats just a cartoon view of human nature.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049314)

You seem to want to say "but yeah, they self-selected to be spectators as such." hmmm. maybe. but there were an awful lot of them. and just because you self-select, dont you change your mind while seeing the torment first hand or the terrified look of the woman as she passes--some small but significant portion would, no matter what. the fact that the spectators are "self selected" doesnt cure the problem.

It's an easy go-to to imagine people in general as vicious in these sort of creepy steven kingy horror stories... which lends to the creepiness of the story but its part of the defect that often crops up in narratives like this. there are always people who push back. that sort of component is what makes things more interesting. as viewers WE are the people who push back here, which is fine, but to be more interesting and accurate, at least one or two spectators would offer a kindly word or some help. It's unreal in that sense, and professional writers would agree. while theres a lot of cruelty in the world, theres also some kindness.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049482)

You're making exactly the "90% accurate" objection I just addressed above.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049509)

But I'm not going to do that. Because then I would, like you, be MISSING THE POINT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049566)

any indication of this anywhere in the episode? would be more interesting if so.

Now you are making stuff up to defend your position. which you cant because you just don't have as much wisdom and insight as me, at least at this point in your life.

ITS also apparent to me that you were unaware of the nuances to the milgram experiment util i pointed it out to you, which you pointedly ignored because you are just not going to concede that I know more than you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049583)

You clearly don't understand the evils ordinary people are willing to perform under the right circumstances (and in fact this episode explores that very idea!), and you don't understand what it means for a premise to be "workable."

The test of a premise is not whether it could actually happen 100% identically in real life with zero changes or frictions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049349)

But if upon reflection your objection is still this silly thing about realism and believability, this essay is a decent (through imperfect) start:

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/10/30/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-plot-holes-and-movie-logic

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049416)

Please meditate on what that means, and in particular ask yourself why the writers knew this and intentionally exaggerated anyway.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049587)

One of them ranked Arkangel as the best episode LMAO

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35048962)

I'm much unhappier about Arkangel and Crocodile, which are stereotypical in bad ways.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049071)

I don't think you know what that means. I also don't think the things you think are "holes" are particularly important.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049176)

More generally, you realize that it's not the job of a story to answer in complete detail every possible question that could be asked about its setting, and in fact that often ambiguity is more compelling than making everything precise, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049240)

but when the error is in how people actually would respond to something, thats a hard suspension of belief to maintain. it often breaks the willingness to suspend.

I like to watch little kids listen to stories. what do they lean in on, listen to very closely? dialogue. How people --people other than the protagonist--respond to stuff. They love testing this out against what they know about people thus far in their little lives.

If you as story teller fuck up this component--as many story tellers do, because they are aspie or worse, their story isnt all that good to begin with and needs to bend our expectation of what other characters should or would do iIRL--if you fuck this up, people will notice it, and it will be a little moment of not sitting right with them.

its as simple as that. you probably cant see it yet because your still a baby and dont know enough about human nature yet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049643)

The answer you gave upthread was that you don't think they're actually that far away! Just a little. Which means whoever wrote this did their job effectively re: making you plumb the depths of humanity's cruelty and recognize its capacity for EVIL.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049684)

keep changing your tune. but its just a problem w the story and the story telling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049693)

You object that IRL, some people wouldn't be comfortable torturing the lead character. Whatever.

The important part is that you recognize that SOME PEOPLE WOULD.

(And then the real question: how many? You seem to think quite a lot!)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35049709)

its a fun series but definitely just the modern version of twilight zone

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35061319)

Best episode of the season, though an average to above average episode otherwise. The season was terrible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35126207)

Nevermind, I don't know that I want to put the time in to really understanding this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35126331)

Yep, that's it. The episode implies that their "consciousness" has been uploaded to the Sim (a plot vehicle the show has used for a while now) and the Sim borrows ideas from traditional and modern dating mores to create the perfect the system for finding compatibility. Judging by the way they look at each other in reality and the way she walks over to him (different than the way they saw each other at first in the simulation), it looks like the app is legit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35126378)

It would require a computer faster than Watson/AlphaGo in the palm of your hand to run that kind of sim.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35126559)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35126720)

Given the mathematical precision of it, it's probably not necessary that there be only one soulmate for each person.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35126724)

the logic is that every single possible pairing is run through the same simulation conditions: short first pairing with the potential match, long second pairing with a non-match, multiple short pairings with non-matches, followed by an "abbreviated" re-pairing with the match, followed by the impending pairing to an unknown "one" (who is definitively *not* the match) which spurs the will we / won't we decision of the initial match pair to exit "the system" based on them independently coming to the mutual conclusion that they are well matched to each other.

each time the pair combination successfully exits "the system" the match is therefore confirmed as successful and every time they fail to do so the match is deemed unsuccessful. Therefore, based on 1000 attempts with 998 successful 'exits' (i.e. rebellions against the system), the implied success rate of the irl relationship is calculated to be 998/1000 or 99.8%.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35139297)

USS Callister A-

Arkangel B+

Crocodile B-

Hang the DJ A

Metalhead B-

Black Museum A-

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35167569)

Though the matching app is seemingly "random," in reality the two leads' relationship history is the type you'd see IRL.

Dweeby guy dates: girl out of his league for 12 hours w/o sex, a couple horrible shrews for way longer than he should, etc.

Attractive girl dates: guy she's not attracted to (the dweeby guy) for 12 hours, a few longish relationships with chads, then literally RIDES THE COCK CAROUSEL to the point where she loses count, is worn down, and is relieved to find a beta provider.

Absent the ending (where it was all a simulation leading to the couple's intial date), this would have been SPOT ON.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3844074&forum_id=2#35578466)