Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Fabinas]

Walter White was a terrible person from day one. He never had noble intentions. He’s not conflicted. He doesn’t struggle with making the bad decision, he just selfishly makes it. Jesse is the conflicted character, and you are supposed to look at him as a reflection of what a person who isn’t a sociopath (like Walter) would look like if brought down the same road.

WW is the most overrated character in television history, but even if he was great you have wildly misunderstood him if you think he had noble intentions.

Sure, whatever.

[Triceron]

Walter White was a terrible person from day one. He never had noble intentions. He’s not conflicted. He doesn’t struggle with making the bad decision, he just selfishly makes it. Jesse is the conflicted character, and you are supposed to look at him as a reflection of what a person who isn’t a sociopath (like Walter) would look like if brought down the same road.

WW is the most overrated character in television history, but even if he was great you have wildly misunderstood him if you think he had noble intentions.

Nice hot take.

[Fabinas]

Nice hot take.

He thought i'd bite. I know better

[Dhrizzle]

Walter White was a terrible person from day one. He never had noble intentions. He’s not conflicted. He doesn’t struggle with making the bad decision, he just selfishly makes it. Jesse is the conflicted character, and you are supposed to look at him as a reflection of what a person who isn’t a sociopath (like Walter) would look like if brought down the same road.

WW is the most overrated character in television history, but even if he was great you have wildly misunderstood him if you think he had noble intentions.

Ah come on, there was about 5 episodes where he could be considered morally grey. Right until he turned down the job offer from his old partners at Gray Matter.

[NineSpine]

Ah come on, there was about 5 episodes where he could be considered morally grey. Right until he turned down the job offer from his old partners at Gray Matter.

Remember when he straight up murders a dude in cold blood in the first episode?

- - - Updated - - -

Nice hot take.

It’s not a hot take. It’s a basic understanding of the character. Walter White is not a morally grey character. He murders someone immediately.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, whatever.

If you think a cold blooded murderer is a morally grey character, I don’t know what to tell you.

[Fabinas]

Remember when he straight up murders a dude in cold blood in the first episode?

- - - Updated - - -



It’s not a hot take. It’s a basic understanding of the character. Walter White is not a morally grey character. He murders someone immediately.

- - - Updated - - -



If you think a cold blooded murderer is a morally grey character, I don’t know what to tell you.

Then don't. We wouldn't have anything to discuss, anyway.

[Triceron]

It’s not a hot take. It’s a basic understanding of the character. Walter White is not a morally grey character. He murders someone immediately.

I'll give you credit for the blatant gaslighting. Nice try.

[eschatological]

Ah come on, there was about 5 episodes where he could be considered morally grey. Right until he turned down the job offer from his old partners at Gray Matter.

This is the correct take.

The first murder could be considered self-defense, the guy tries to kill him at the RV in the desert, and then even when he survives Walter's chemical attack, Walter is considering letting him go until the guy takes a shard of plate and tries to kill him again.

I suppose you could argue anyone who decides to treat medical debt with large-scale meth production is morally bad from the get, but I don't consider drug dealing as morally bankrupt as what Walter White becomes. The show is called "Breaking Bad," not "Broke Bad."

FWIW, though, way too many viewers consider WW an antihero or even a hero, well after this (I believe it's third, not fifth) episode where he turns down the job offer. Some believe it even to the end of the show, which is ludicrous. He's a sociopath, and not morally grey at all, by the latest at the end of season 1.

[Orby]

this is a good constructive review of where I sit.

[Fabinas]

This is the correct take.

The first murder could be considered self-defense, the guy tries to kill him at the RV in the desert, and then even when he survives Walter's chemical attack, Walter is considering letting him go until the guy takes a shard of plate and tries to kill him again.

I suppose you could argue anyone who decides to treat medical debt with large-scale meth production is morally bad from the get, but I don't consider drug dealing as morally bankrupt as what Walter White becomes. The show is called "Breaking Bad," not "Broke Bad."

FWIW, though, way too many viewers consider WW an antihero or even a hero, well after this (I believe it's third, not fifth) episode where he turns down the job offer. Some believe it even to the end of the show, which is ludicrous. He's a sociopath, and not morally grey at all, by the latest at the end of season 1.

This is so superficial, i can't even start to take it down. Maybe it's probably cause you watched it just the once time that you missed the nuances and the reluctant (at first) steps of his moral descent and his gradual transformation from a weak, dissillusioned, almost pathetic loser to one of the greatest villains in media.

[Triceron]

This is the correct take.

The first murder could be considered self-defense, the guy tries to kill him at the RV in the desert, and then even when he survives Walter's chemical attack, Walter is considering letting him go until the guy takes a shard of plate and tries to kill him again.

I suppose you could argue anyone who decides to treat medical debt with large-scale meth production is morally bad from the get, but I don't consider drug dealing as morally bankrupt as what Walter White becomes. The show is called "Breaking Bad," not "Broke Bad."

FWIW, though, way too many viewers consider WW an antihero or even a hero, well after this (I believe it's third, not fifth) episode where he turns down the job offer. Some believe it even to the end of the show, which is ludicrous. He's a sociopath, and not morally grey at all, by the latest at the end of season 1.

I don't think he was a hero or anti-hero. For that matter I don't think he was a villain either. It wasn't so black and white.

Even if you don't consider him morally grey, he still had enough to keep you guessing. If it were so simple that he was just evil or straight up sociopathic, then there would be no hesitation in him killing certain characters like Jane. But he did hesitate and did want to help her. If he was straight up sociopathic, we wouldn't even consider that to be a dramatic moment, we would have expected him to do it because that's who he is. IMO, it wasn't that simple.

I wouldn't really consider him morally bankrupt, because I think someone who is morally bankrupt wouldn't convince themselves that they are doing some sort of good. They wouldn't have any morals at all, no beliefs to hold on to. Walter White convinced himself that he was the good guy, and how he acted is very different from a true morally bankrupt sociopath who may merely be 'acting good' to fit into society.

I would say he had a twisted sense of morality, one where he justified every action he did as being noble and purposeful.

[eschatological]

I would say he had a twisted sense of morality, one where he justified every action he did as being noble and purposeful.

This is the definition of a sociopath.

[Triceron]

This is the definition of a sociopath.

No, it is not.

A Sociopath has no morals, as in a complete lacking of it. That is not the same as someone who is morally corrupt, who tries to justify their bad actions. As in, they have morals, but they're manipulated and twisted to fit a selfish purpose.

[bledgor]

No, it is not.

A Sociopath has no morals, as in a complete lacking of it. That is not the same as someone who is morally corrupt, who tries to justify their bad actions. As in, they have morals, but they're manipulated and twisted to fit a selfish purpose.

This, but about what I expect from a mod here. On topic I find it sad Hollywood seems so fixated on having "grey" villains with some attempt to justify their actions instead of people who just turn out to be evil.

[eschatological]

No, it is not.

A Sociopath has no morals, as in a complete lacking of it. That is not the same as someone who is morally corrupt, who tries to justify their bad actions. As in, they have morals, but they're manipulated and twisted to fit a selfish purpose.

Sociopaths lack empathy, they don't lack "morality." They make up their own morality to justify their behavior.

To be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you need only 3 of the following 7 criteria (Bold is my emphasis):

1. Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. Having no regard for the safety of self or others
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7. Lack of remorse, or inability to feel guilt, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Other symptoms someone with antisocial personality disorder may exhibit are:

Acting charming, kind, or lying to resolve personal goals or means
Exuding a sense of superiority or arrogance
Partaking in impulsivity and being prone to taking risks or engaging in dangerous behavior with little regard for how it may affect others
A lack of empathy or compassionate feelings towards others or a situation
Hostile, aggressive behavior, or violence
Being dishonest or lying to people
A shaky moral code or difficulty following societal norms
Being irresponsible
An inability to maintain healthy relationships
A lack of regard for rules
A potential history of criminal behavior

Walter White didn't delay in killing Jane. He just thought out the decision, and then decided to let her die. He wasn't hesitating because of empathy - if he had any empathy, he would have helped her. But because she was a hindrance to his emotional manipulation of Jesse, he consciously made the decision to let her OD. Every relationship is about serving his own image. Vince Gilligan had to go out of his way in the last season to practically have Bryan Cranston look into the camera and say "I did this for myself, not for my family."

[Triceron]

The thing on Walter White is: what if he didn’t get cancer, and just lived a normal life, which he seemed willing to do at first?

Most people who have a set routine in life continue to live through the routine out of sheer comfort. Whether they recognize or acknowledge there is a need for change, it's usually very difficult to address or change just on the basis of recognition or acknowledgement. It takes a lot of willpower to commit to a drastic change, to be taken out of a 'comfort zone'. Could be anything like breaking out of an addiction, or changing a habit, or even just committing to an exersize routine.

Reaching a low point in life makes it easier to break out of the comfort zone and make radical changes. There's nothing left to lose.

- - - Updated - - -

Walter White didn't delay in killing Jane. He just thought out the decision, and then decided to let her die. He wasn't hesitating because of empathy - if he had any empathy, he would have helped her. But because she was a hindrance to his emotional manipulation of Jesse, he consciously made the decision to let her OD. Every relationship is about serving his own image. Vince Gilligan had to go out of his way in the last season to practically have Bryan Cranston look into the camera and say "I did this for myself, not for my family."

He hesitated. "No no no" does not suggest he immediately let her die. Let's not change the facts of what happened in the show.

You can explain how a sociopath is defined by not having empathy. You can't tell me that Walter White has no empathy if his first instinctive reaction to Jane was to help her. He isn't lacking empathy. He is quick to subdue his emotions and moral compass. He isn't lacking a regard for rules, he is actively justifying his choice to disregard them. At this point in the show, he is morally reprehensible, but clearly not sociopathic.

A sociopath may be defined by having shaky moral code, but you can't just apply this terminology to anyone who has a shaky moral code. A sociopath is a very specific term for someone who literally does not feel guilt or remorse for their actions. Walter White FEELS guilt and remorse. Just because he actively ignores his feelings and acts against his better judgement does not mean he does not have feelings.

This is even indicative of the ending where he genuinely tries to connect back to his family. That's generally not how a sociopath would act if their family no longer served any purpose to them.

-edit-

Looking into this more deeply online, it looks like people attribute WW as being a narcissist, which can often be confused with sociopathy. Both have shaky moral codes, both are willing to do manipulate people for self interests (Narcissist to feed their egos, Sociopaths for the pleasure of it). But the differences become clearer if we recognize that a Narcissist also tries and maintains a good public image and is concerned about what other people think of them, while a sociopath generally does not care about those things at all.

[rhorle]

This, but about what I expect from a mod here. On topic I find it sad Hollywood seems so fixated on having "grey" villains with some attempt to justify their actions instead of people who just turn out to be evil.

It is entertainment. The main characters are supposed to be someone viewers can relate to. Very few people want to watch someone purely evil. Just look at how populer the Netflix Dahmer show was and how they romanticized him a little.

As for a sociopath they don't always lack morals. Their "moral compass" is just off or skewed. It is filtered through their own perspective and unique to them. They key for a sociopath is that they have a weak conscience but it won't stop their behavior. They may feel guilt or remorse but won't be swayed by it. But don't let this stop you from senselessly blaming a mod.

[Fabinas]

Walter White didn't delay in killing Jane. He just thought out the decision, and then decided to let her die. He wasn't hesitating because of empathy - if he had any empathy, he would have helped her. But because she was a hindrance to his emotional manipulation of Jesse, he consciously made the decision to let her OD. Every relationship is about serving his own image. Vince Gilligan had to go out of his way in the last season to practically have Bryan Cranston look into the camera and say "I did this for myself, not for my family."

Not only the video proved you wrong (on both your claims about WW and your aversion of re-experiencing media), you go ahead and point to a WW on his "final form" as an argument to prove something on 2nd season, where humanity and empathy still existed in his character.

Bleh, you probably have me blocked, but who cares? People will read and judge for themselves about WW, anyway.

[eschatological]

Looking into this more deeply online, it looks like people attribute WW as being a narcissist, which can often be confused with sociopathy. Both have shaky moral codes, both are willing to do manipulate people for self interests (Narcissist to feed their egos, Sociopaths for the pleasure of it). But the differences become clearer if we recognize that a Narcissist also tries and maintains a good public image and is concerned about what other people think of them, while a sociopath generally does not care about those things at all.

Hmm, a malignant narcissist probably does fit better than sociopath. I dislike the label narcissist though, purely because people think it's "less bad" when they can probably be just as destructive as sociopaths.

Bleh, you probably have me blocked, but who cares? People will read and judge for themselves about WW, anyway.

I'm a moderator, I don't have anyone on my block list.

[Koriani]

Sociopaths lack empathy, they don't lack "morality." They make up their own morality to justify their behavior.

To be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you need only 3 of the following 7 criteria (Bold is my emphasis):

1. Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. Having no regard for the safety of self or others
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7. Lack of remorse, or inability to feel guilt, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Other symptoms someone with antisocial personality disorder may exhibit are:

Acting charming, kind, or lying to resolve personal goals or means
Exuding a sense of superiority or arrogance
Partaking in impulsivity and being prone to taking risks or engaging in dangerous behavior with little regard for how it may affect others
A lack of empathy or compassionate feelings towards others or a situation
Hostile, aggressive behavior, or violence
Being dishonest or lying to people
A shaky moral code or difficulty following societal norms
Being irresponsible
An inability to maintain healthy relationships
A lack of regard for rules
A potential history of criminal behavior

I'm only saying this because its my profession -

Antisocial Personality Disorder is NOT all equivalent to Psychopath or Sociopath. Neither is Narcissism. Or any single disorder - equivalent to the term Psychopath and Sociopath and how they are 'used' in today's parlance.

The issue we have (in the general field) is that Psychopath and Sociopath actually aren't defined as diagnoseable disorders. Hell, there's still arguments between professionals in the field all over about how we ARE defining those terms and what 'exactly' is Sociopath vs. Psychopath. And while AntisocialPD IS (obviously) a specifically defined Disorder (like NarcissisticPD), NONE of these terms are interchangeable or equivalent. They DO have "Symptoms" in common (all of the above have a lack of empathy for example), obviously, but they are not equal or 'the same' in other ways.

You can have sociopaths who are not Antisocial (but they probably would all qualify for Narcissistic Personality Disorder). These are your 'functioning' sociopaths, who can be very successful.
You can have Antisocial PD and they are NOT psychopaths or sociopaths. Just idiot criminals in prison, violating the rights of, and blaming, others.
You can have NarcissisticPD and NOT be a sociopath or psychopath.

As someone with a professional mastery of Psychology and an amateur study interest in Serial Killers/Psychopaths - this is more the way I conceptualize this:

Psychopath (or Sociopath - again these terms are so muddied even as they aren't meant to be interchangeable - there IS a difference) you're basically seeing MULTIPLE personality disorders present. Any one of the *single* personality disorders does /not/ make a psychopath.

A Psychopath - well that's Narcissism, Borderline (or Histrionic, depending), AND Antisocial PD - all in one. These people are so beyond "normal" dysfunctional, they aren't qualifying for just one personality disorder. But checking the criteria boxes of 3. The Unholy Trifecta - if you will. =D

But you can't "diagnose" Psychopathy or Sociopathy (at least not yet). They aren't terms used *that way* in the actual professional field. They're still more vague, or more 'overarching concepts' the field is still working on nailing down. Just like "insanity" is a legal term, not a psychological one, and not used so much in the psych-professional field. We absolutely "Determine mental competency", but that more also revolves and concerns itself with the "Why" - whether that's someone with a psychosis, or a brief dissociative episode, or low IQ, or developmental delay, or intoxicated, etc. "Insanity" doesn't come into it and isn't a term that applies, psychologically speaking.

And if you want more details or explanations on this I'm happy to dive into it - I just didn't want to go into a differential diagnosis lecture in the LOTR thread =D. But the academic in me couldn't just let this sit there without clarification and explanation.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, a malignant narcissist probably does fit better than sociopath. I dislike the label narcissist though, purely because people think it's "less bad" when they can probably be just as destructive as sociopaths.

I will agree with you there. People really underestimate the destructive toxic power of a Narcissist.
But Narcissist is not an interchangeable term with Sociopath.

But people, in general, don't really understand "get" how a Personality Disorder is (literally) a whole other level of mental health disorder than every other disorder that isn't a Personality Disorder. (As there are only 9 PDs and over 100 other disorders). We're talking about the skewing and dysfunction of someone's /entire/ personality, how they see /all of reality/, their entire world view. And how they believe everyone else sees it, too.

And I'd also like to clarify - Narcissists do NOT CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK in a way that means they change their behavior. "They care what people think" only in that they want some sort of "public face" that tricks people into doing what they want and serving their ego. The moment the narcissist knows they can't pull off that 'public face' to someone doesn't mean they change their behavior, they just villianize/trash that individual in whatever way they desire, and move on always secure in their own superiority. I've seen many people misunderstand the 'care what people think' part of this and think that means the Disordered person curbs their behavior, and that is NOT in any way, correct. (true personality disordered) Narcissists do /not/ change - it violates their entire reality. There's no reason to change when everyone else is just wrong.