TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [1]
1

The popularity of the "Information wants to be free plot" in real life:

I don't know if this is going to be too much of a trivial sounding rant for this thread and should be put on Yak fest. I admit, I'm gonna goof around a bit before getting to my point

The "LANGUAGE PROFESSORS HATE HIM" ad seems to appeal to an odd mentality.

"Language professors hate him" is supposed to imply language professors don't hate him for insulting their livelihoods and their mothers or something, but for being successful? If I plastered a banner everywhere saying I was hated by a group of people, would it be taken to mean it's because I'm so darn awesome or just as quickly be taken to mean I acted like a major league douche to said group? Usually being hated by a group doesn't mean you're a good person and it's funny to see it being spun that way. It's kinda like going "Firemen hate him" - That's a good thing 'cause your first thought should be "He has secret knowledge" not "He's a pyromaniac arsonist who killed their colleagues."

In my experience, the most likely reason experts in some field hate sellers of some product or idea is because they're butchering and spreading falsehoods about their area of expertise. Somewhere, a Paleontologist Is Crying sure doesn't refer to things that revolutionize paleontology. What if it was "English teachers hate him." or "Paleontologists hate him." Would that be taken as meaning it's something brilliant that will run English teachers and paleontologists out of business?

It's akin to "Astronauts hate him" - Because when he accuses Armstrong and Aldrin of faking their moon walks in a studio, Astronauts just want to hide the truth.

I've been seeing things recently that sell themselves on the allure of the underdog-inventor-persecuted-by-the-establishment-for-their-brilliance story. A friend a couple weeks ago shared a pamphlet about some supposed cancer cure by a doctor who was taken to court and prosecuted in the 20s. It sounded like such a one-sided half of a "Rashomon"-Style story; the doctor's work was perfect and amazing and the courts persecuted him because, well because they're evil! And corrupt! Black and white simplicity. The same friend was also before talking about (might be the same guy) Bazinski or some doctor who supposedly has a cancer cure that's being suppressed. I'm not saying all unconventional caner treatment is BS, but they're sold in a way that seems to rely heavily on you just assuming any guy that's snubbed for his fringe ideas must be in the right, that crackpots don't exist, it's always the establishment in the wrong

Part of it feels like anti-establishment rebelliousness that's there not out of any sort of principles or disagreements with the establishment, but just the glory of fighting the establishment. So the establishment, in this case being academics, eggheads, mainstream science, etc. must be painted as fundamentally especially untrustworthy so they can play the baddies, and when someone disagrees with them, lone nut or not a nut, they can be painted as the hero, all concocted for the fantasy thrills of being a victim against an evil empire.

I'm generally anti-establishment (or mostly just anti-conformity) but this shallow anti-establishment thinking is starting to get on my nerves. Defaulting on "the dissenter is always right" is just as wrong as declaring the dissenter is always wrong.

So that guy can add another slogan to his banner ad; "Sensible people hate him, because his his slogan is freaking obnoxious."

edited 3rd Oct '12 3:42:10 PM by Crocoshark

 
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 1
1


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy