> “It goes back to Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil a bit,” says director Andrew Neel. “These everyday things that are beloved to us, like food, can take on an entirely different dimension within the context of a dictatorship.”
That’s not at all what Arendt was writing about. She was writing about those who do evil things are rarely the “evil” monsters we imagine but rather bureaucrats motivated by things like promotions. Hard to remain motivated to consume an article after reading this in the opening.
> By most measures, theirs was a great gig – logic that can excuse almost anything. “Saddam’s chef got a car every year,” Neel says. “That phrase, ‘it was a great gig,’ I think, actually runs the world. Like, ‘It was just business.’”
> “It goes back to Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil a bit,” says director Andrew Neel. “These everyday things that are beloved to us, like food, can take on an entirely different dimension within the context of a dictatorship.”
Is still a misquote/misrepresentation. People can understand a subject but still say wrong things about it.
No, they did not. Arendt’s point about evil being banal is that the perpetrator’s behavior is motivated by the banal. A chef isn’t the perp. They’re adjacent to the monsters and they might be motivated by and fixated on the banality of doing great work.at most this is juxtaposition of evil and banality.
I don't see a misrepresentation there - the need to eat and the love of good food is common to most of humanity and points to the fact that even dictators are also just people. Banal humans rather than cartoon villians.
> Hard to remain motivated to consume an article after reading this in the opening.
I think it's unfortunate to be so dismissive of an article over one quote from one person that you disagree with. You can still get something out of the piece if you open your mind a bit.
He does figure briefly in the discussion at the end and doesn't qualify for the full treatment yet as he's a dictator-in-waiting. In any case what is there to say about McDonald's? The man is as boring and tasteless as he is appaling.
The Guardian should not be treated with more seriousness than some random blog on the internet. This is something everyone should have learned by now: the media that claimed it was filtering information to the public responsibly was lying. The NYT, the WaPo, they’re all liars. Oh yes, their geopolitical adversaries were not delivering unbiased information either.
But, we no longer have to rely on these point sources of filtered information to understand the world around us. Really, for investors in commodities (a delicate and fragile business for sure) their pronouncements and articles are IRRELEVANT. Entirely so.
We are witnessing the breakdown of the corporate disinformation system that the likes of the Guardian, the NYT, the NY Post, the Telegraph, the Wapo, etc represent. They are no longer considered to be reliable sources of information. That’s just how it is.
> “It goes back to Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil a bit,” says director Andrew Neel. “These everyday things that are beloved to us, like food, can take on an entirely different dimension within the context of a dictatorship.”
That’s not at all what Arendt was writing about. She was writing about those who do evil things are rarely the “evil” monsters we imagine but rather bureaucrats motivated by things like promotions. Hard to remain motivated to consume an article after reading this in the opening.
Later:
> By most measures, theirs was a great gig – logic that can excuse almost anything. “Saddam’s chef got a car every year,” Neel says. “That phrase, ‘it was a great gig,’ I think, actually runs the world. Like, ‘It was just business.’”
I’d say they understood the meaning.
Perhaps they understand the meaning, but this:
> “It goes back to Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil a bit,” says director Andrew Neel. “These everyday things that are beloved to us, like food, can take on an entirely different dimension within the context of a dictatorship.”
Is still a misquote/misrepresentation. People can understand a subject but still say wrong things about it.
No, they did not. Arendt’s point about evil being banal is that the perpetrator’s behavior is motivated by the banal. A chef isn’t the perp. They’re adjacent to the monsters and they might be motivated by and fixated on the banality of doing great work.at most this is juxtaposition of evil and banality.
I don't see a misrepresentation there - the need to eat and the love of good food is common to most of humanity and points to the fact that even dictators are also just people. Banal humans rather than cartoon villians.
> Hard to remain motivated to consume an article after reading this in the opening.
I think it's unfortunate to be so dismissive of an article over one quote from one person that you disagree with. You can still get something out of the piece if you open your mind a bit.
I think your interpretation is a little rigid. And did you read the rest of the article?
Seeing this at #1 on HN, I'm genuinely surprised it isn't about Orange Jesus.
He does figure briefly in the discussion at the end and doesn't qualify for the full treatment yet as he's a dictator-in-waiting. In any case what is there to say about McDonald's? The man is as boring and tasteless as he is appaling.
There's only so much that one can write about McDonalds burgers and Diet Coke.
You forget about two scoops of ice creams because there is no level of pettiness he can’t sink to, to show he’s better than everyone.[1]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-...
The man is by all accounts not a hedonist when it comes to food and drinks.
Keepin' it strait!
Not the original title
I prefer sprouted beans, it's a good source of protein for nice strongman
The Guardian should not be treated with more seriousness than some random blog on the internet. This is something everyone should have learned by now: the media that claimed it was filtering information to the public responsibly was lying. The NYT, the WaPo, they’re all liars. Oh yes, their geopolitical adversaries were not delivering unbiased information either.
But, we no longer have to rely on these point sources of filtered information to understand the world around us. Really, for investors in commodities (a delicate and fragile business for sure) their pronouncements and articles are IRRELEVANT. Entirely so.
We are witnessing the breakdown of the corporate disinformation system that the likes of the Guardian, the NYT, the NY Post, the Telegraph, the Wapo, etc represent. They are no longer considered to be reliable sources of information. That’s just how it is.
This account appears to have started posting AI-generated comments for the past 3-4 months.