First, why is peer review good in concept. Well, it allows another reader to catch errors that you as the writer may have skipped over. It allows you to know how some one other than you would react to your writing, and conveying something to an audience is the main point of writing. Knowing how one of those people for whom the piece is intended for reacts and understands your writing is immensely beneficial for improving your draft.
Now, how on earth does a video of a vicious king repressing those of the peasant class relate to peer review? Peer review is essentially and argument, but one that must be done politely. The reviewer must not try to impose their ideas, but instead mere improve the presentation of the others ideas. Here we see how not to do that. The person being reviewed should not completely dismiss all critiques, but also the person who is critiquing must be gentler. If there is a problem with the argument, perhaps phrase it in a question instead of giving an answer and why you are right.
With a little extra help from others, papers can be turned from disorganized thought vomit into intelligible papers that actually fulfill rubric requirements. Just be careful if you are the one reviewing not to hate on the idea alone. Suggest, but really, just be nice
image: https://goo.gl/images/K4usH3