Peep Show is the most realistic portrayal of evil I have seen (2020)

Reception of the article and core thesis

• Many readers enjoyed the character analysis but felt the central claim about “redefining evil” doesn’t quite hold; it reads more like a thoughtful fan essay than a decisive moral theory.
• Others felt it resonated, especially the link between low self-worth and malicious behavior that feels “justified” in the moment.

Empathy, protagonists, and “we are the baddies”

• Split views on identifying with Mark and Jez: some never empathized with them and see them as clearly awful; others see a lot of their own neuroses in the characters.
• Discussion of how creators manipulate identification with flawed leads (Peep Show, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Seinfeld, The Office, Fawlty Towers, Blackadder, 30 Rock).
• Several note that modern TV often makes you oscillate between rooting for and despising the protagonist, mirroring real-world rationalizations of bad behavior.

Cringe, social horror, and realism

• Peep Show is widely classified as extreme “cringe humor” or even “social horror” because of its first-person shots and inner monologues that make viewers physically cringe.
• Some question the article’s stress on realism: shows like The Thick of It feel totally unrealistic scene by scene yet capture corruption and incompetence with eerie psychological truth.

Low self-esteem, rationalization, and everyday evil

• Multiple comments endorse the idea that low self-esteem and insecurity can be a significant driver of cruelty, often framed as “punching up” or as what a “loser” naturally does.
• Others stress rationalization and cowardice: people bend reality to excuse small crimes or morally dubious consumption, and much harm comes from passively going along with systems.

Arendt, Eichmann, and the term “evil”

• Extended side-debate about Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil”:
  • One side emphasizes evidence that Eichmann was an eager, ambitious perpetrator, not a mere clerk.
  • Another clarifies that “banal” referred to his self-conception and bureaucratic normality, not to minimizing his crimes.
• Some argue “evil” is a religious, anti‑intellectual label that obscures real causes of atrocities; others counter that dropping the term risks softening clear moral judgment.