This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: Demonizing Narrative: From YKTTW
So, about this one:
- Some groups against global warming have painted various industries this way, talking about them as evil faceless corporations who are just callously destroying the planet for profit and blame governments for 'encouraging them'. Some even call for them to be shut down in only a few years, despite the economic and social havoc this would wreak on communities. In return their detractors paint global warming advocates as crazy people out to spread lies and destruction for no reason.
- And by the same token, conservative groups often assume that environmentalists are simply using global warming as part of a campaign to strangle capitalism. One of the founding members of Greenpeace is assuring people that this is the case for a large part of the environmental movement, though clearly not the whole thing.
- And by the same token, conservative groups often assume that environmentalists are simply using global warming as part of a campaign to strangle capitalism. One of the founding members of Greenpeace is assuring people that this is the case
The problem here is that the first one being true pretty much means that the second one isn't demonization, it's just true. Even if not, does calling somebody anti-capitalist count as demonization? Strawman, maybe, but it's far too common an actual sentiment to fall under this trope.
Ironeye: Is there any major political/religious/whatever group that South Park doesn't do this to? (And please no: "The show is justified in its comments on that horrible Group X but certainly goes to far when dealing with my personal cause, Group Y." No, not even if Group X is Scientology—there's already a thread on the forums for that.) As far as I have seen, South Park is an equal-opportunity offender, and picking out just one or two particular examples may imply a major bias...at least to people who aren't familiar with the show.
Anonymous lurker: Moved this commentary about Sword Of Truth series from main article:
- Ah yes, "hatred of moral clarity". If he knew what that phrase meant, he would know that means people who hate things being black and white, and prefer moral ambiguity. Pacifist are firm in their morality that they don't like war.
- Not whether it's right or wrong to think that way, just that it's not a hatred of moral clarity, just a hatred of war.
- Remember, Goodkind defines "moral clarity" as "the Objectivist creed." Anyone who's not an Objectivist is not thinking straight.
- In a delightful case of irony, Sword Of Truth is constantly demonized on this very wiki. The pacifists were killed because they were aiding the enemy, not because of their beliefs regarding violence.
- That sort of ignores the idea that a person with moral clarity would be somehow unable to find a solution to nonviolent protest that didn't involve slaughtering them.
- And that sort of ignores the fact that it was a "nonviolent protest" which was taking place in the middle of a battle (you know, because there were actually people present who were not pacifists). An arrow through your skull tends to limit the amount of time you have to try reasoning with people. See, there's something you didn't know about that part because most people want to make Richard sound as evil as possible by leaving things out.
- Ah yes, "hatred of moral clarity". If he knew what that phrase meant, he would know that means people who hate things being black and white, and prefer moral ambiguity. Pacifist are firm in their morality that they don't like war.
By the way, is it actually possible to demonize work of fiction (as opposed to actual groups of people and their opinions)? If it is, which is the point where the negative commentary should be considered "demonization"? Besides, the criticism aimed at Sword of Truth series in this Wiki is actually quite reasonable when compared to the long and pretentious rants of infamous Mystar.
Also, it can be said that of course Richard had no other options in Naked Empire. Feric Jaggar had no other options, either. Protagonist having no other options doesn't automatically render the criticism irrelevant especially if the situation has been artificially and specifically tailored to fit the point author wants to make, no matter how unlikely the similar situation would be in real life.
Dragon Quest Z: If someone still has a problem with Hitler being listed, even after I made it more specific, then if there is a trope for simplifying or exaggerating how historical figures are portrayed, then we move it there, or make such a trope.
Fast Eddie: Pulling discussion out of the article:
- Really, in this Troper's experience, about 50% of the anti-Scientologist sentiment is done just to be chic cause South Park did it, about 40% is pure bigotry by other religions, and about 10% is at best highly subjective "truths". The reality is any argument against Scientology can be just as easily directed against any religion or large institution for that matter. Especially claims of "culthood", which is silly because technically all religions are cults and the term only gained a negative inferrence in recent times. That in and of itself is kind of a demonization. In ancient times the word "cult" and "religion" were interchangible. Not a scinentologist myself...but really, the antis make This Troper (a Christian) want to convert just to spite their ignorance and bigotry.
- OK, not trying to start an argument on a Tropes page, but the major thing that makes Scientology a cult is that they don't teach the core beliefs of their religion to low-level acolytes. They wait until you've invested a lot of effort and belief into their Church, then tell you what they're about.
- That...is so not accurate. As said above, the word "cult" has no inherently bad meaning. All that "cult" means IS religion...saying it's a cult and therefore not a religion is like saying it's a car and therefor not a vehicle! And more so that in and of itself does not make it bad, if anything it just makes it strict, there were Christian sects far more devout and strict than that until fairly recently. And lets not even get started on the "mysteries" that were legion in Ancient times! What makes Scientology a cult is that it's a religion...like Christianity, Islam, and every other faith in the world.
- That Shit might have flown back in Ancient times, but nowadays we have ideas about fraud, free exchange of information, and, you know, not harassing-to-the-point-of-creepy-sinister-stalking people who say negative things about you. And isnt it just possible that the meaning of the word Cult has changed? True, the definitions might seem a bit arbitrary, but take Jonestown as an example. When a given "new religious movement" forcibly sequesters their adherents and advocates (read: enforces) mass suicide, I think it can be safe to say they aren't on the level. And this is coming from a religion-snarking Atheist, mind you. The difference between a Religion and a Cult is that a Religion has stood the test of time and proven to not cause cultural self-destruct or a non-functioning society. They might be bad in a myriad of other ways, but at least they allow their adherents to continue their lives, instead of winding up penniless and/or drinking the cool-aid. Jonestown was a Cult. Scientology may or may not be a cult, but there is enough evidence to make the argument that it is.
- And frankly if we were discussing anything but Scientology, say Christianity or Bhuddism, no one would even be trying to brand it a "cult"...despite the fact that there is no objectively bad meaning to the word cult! The objective, dictionary definition of "cult" is a religious practice...by that standard, every religion is a cult, and vice versa. Scientology is used as a scapegoat by people for a variety of reasons (scared Christians, peopel who don't like religion in general and see an easy target, South Park fanwhores), and is no more dangerous than any other large religion. Frankly they're many, many times less corrupt than some non-religious organizations. Indeed, for all the supposed "excesses" of this religion, recent events have shown that Wall Street has caused more chaos and pain on a global scale than Scientology ever has or will. Or, correct me if I'm wrong, did i miss some instance where Scientologists caused a global depression and mane millions of people lose their houses and jobs last year?
I have an idea about why. It's probably because early examples were self-demonstrating the trope and the editors were inspired by that.
