(he/him)
I disagree this is an example of the trope:
- Trigun:
- In a flashback, we see Vash trying to find a way to rescue a fly from a spider's web. His brother Knives solves the problem by crushing the spider. When Vash protests, he claims it was just practical and that if Vash wanted to rescue all flies, the spider would just starve to death, which is a valid point. Vash and their caretaker just say it's wrong though, and moments later Knives turns into an Axe-Crazy Omnicidal Maniac. It's a shame, because the series manages to turn Vash's goody-two-shoes character archetype into a well rounded and interesting Deconstruction. His opponent, not so much. This isn't so much the case in the manga, where it's revealed that Vash and Knives are Plants that humans use for power; in this context, Knives sees the conflict between the spiders and butterfly as inevitable and synonymous to his own.
- There's a broader implication never really examined at all but nevertheless there in the special guns Vash and Knives have: Knives' gun is basically an ersatz Neutron Bomb: it wipes out all living things, leaving inanimate structures intact. Vash's gun is the much-coveted inversion of this, a device that wipes out all inanimate structures such as buildings and weapons, but leaves all living creatures alive. However, as shown in a couple of episodes, Vash's gun is not necessarily any more humane than Knives' is, as it also leaves the survivors devoid of shelter and starving.
Disclaimer that I have only seen the anime, but the point about humans and plants isn't unique to the manga; Knives literally says "I'm killing the spiders to save the butterflies" in the anime finale. I disagree that he's Axe-Crazy or that this sidesteps the debate — if he truly believes that all humans are spiders, his behavior is a logical extension of his stance. I never got the impression we were given permission to ignore him just because he's a murderer — the question of if murder is right is the entire point on debate.
Honestly, I'd actually say this is an aversion, in the anime at least. The anime confrontation with Legato explicitly calls Vash out on taking a third option every time, and ultimately forces Vash to come down on one side.
Edited by FoolsEditAccount
Just warning that this will be impossible to discuss without mentioning the spoiler.
- Used in an X-Men tie in to Secret Invasion; the Skrulls are besieging San Francisco and tremendous loss of life is expected. Beast reveals he has a virus that, if released, would destroy all the invaders in one shot, but that he has no way of controlling once released and may ultimately lead to the extinction of the entire Skrull race, even those not involved with the invasion. The X-Men ultimately decide to use the virus... and the infected Skrulls kill themselves, so the infection ends with only them.
Haven't read it, but it sounds like an awkwardly handled version of this close enough for Tropes Are Flexible. While they did wind up taking a side, their decision was retroactively proven to be 100% the best one, no moral compunctions involved.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Huh, i don't even remember putting it here, but since i apparently did... IF it was CERTAIN that the virus would kill the Skrulls, then you'd be right. but the way it's written it was a POSSIBILITY. The issue was whether or not the RISK was acceptable. by the time invaders kill themselves, the debate is over. It's an acceptable risk. It didn't end in genocide, but that was just lucky. So no it didn't sidestep the debate.
- Frozen supposedly tackles the issue whether or not a Fourth Date Marriage is a good idea or not. On one hand, there is Anna who is fully willing to marry someone that she just met but it should be noted that said girl has lived in complete isolation and loneliness without anybody to give her a hug or love so it's understandable why she want to have somebody in her life who doesn't shut her out. On the other hand, there is Elsa and Kristoff who detests the marriage and point out that she can't marry someone that she just met due to the political problems of doing so and outright accuse Anna of not knowing true love. Understandable and all, except that Elsa has lived her life in complete isolation so calling her out on it is completely hypocritical of her which Anna rightfully call her out on it. The movie side-stepped this issue by revealing that said man never loved Anna at all and is just using her naivety to become the new ruler of Arendelle.
The way i see it, Hans turning out to be evil DOES answer the debate. Anna may have raised some good points but the movie says that Anna was WRONG in believing in Fourth Date Marriage. She just met Hans and it turned out he wasn't what he seemed, which IS a very legit possibility with a Fourth Date Marriage. This reads less like "the movie started a debate and then ignored it" and more like "the movie started a debate and gave the answer i don't like".
Edited by NNinja
Removed:
- In Machete, the villainous politician seemed to be concerned about illegal immigration and wants to protect the US border by building a giant wall, even if it lead him to associate with racists and killed illegal immigrants, setting up the character as a Well-Intentioned Extremist. But then it was revealed that he was a Corrupt Politician who was in cahoots with a drug cartel and that building the wall will result in the drug cartel having an exclusive access to the US border, which would make the US border more dangerous if he had succeeded.
While the film does make the anti-immigration character into a corrupt politician, I think this is more of a case of strawman than debate and switch. The film is blatantly pro-immigration, so it is taking a stance on the issue. It's just not actually arguing it fairly.
Hide / Show Replies
The Titanium Dragon
Is this trope always a copout by its nature, or do cases where the author is deliberately using it to illustrate a False Dichotomy (and their Take a Third Option is meant to show a real solution to the problem) count as well?
Biomedical engineer, game designer, writer. Hide / Show Replies
Once again, the following was deleted:
- Persona 4: The Central Theme is about "reaching out for the truth", and contantly says that ignoring an Awful Truth, no matter how difficult or painful, is never the right thing. And yet, virtually everything that might classify as "a complaint against society" conveniently remains unquestioned and unchallenged. Japanese society tends to favor the group over the individual, but the narrative avoids addressing a lot of complaints lobbied at said society. For example, Yukiko dislikes being forced to inherit her family's inn: turns out, what she really was worried about was having to do it all alone. The issue of not being able to choose her own job is thus not really addressed at all. Rise dislikes being seen as a media lust object and all the hassle that comes with pop stardom: turns out, she secretly enjoys being in the spotlight and goes back to the industry when it becomes clear she might be replaced. Her objectification is written off as something she can just deal with by accepting the constructed lust object as "herself". Yumi has a complaint about her father selfishly abandoning his wife and child. This is never addressed, because her father ends up dying in the hospital. Yumi decides to live up to her name and "bear fruit" by dropping out of the drama club; the narrative avoids assessing her father's behavior at all by casting Yumi's misgivings as selfish.
The reasons posted by Valiona are:
The Persona 4 example isn't very accurate and seems to misread the general message of their character arcs. In Yukiko's case, she realizes that leaving the inn would essentially result in her having to say goodbye to everyone she cares about. Rise's problem is that she believes people like her because she's Risette (she responds best to saying you don't care about that), but she realizes that it's a facet of her rather than a facade, similar to what she said to accept her Shadow, and that there are people who genuinely admire her.In Yumi's case, she realizes that she did love her father in spite of her anger toward him. Essentially, all three of them remember the good parts as well as the bad and come to terms with them.
Taking a look at the script
, a lot of this is just semantics.
- Yukiko didn't like feeling that she didn't have a choice in what she wanted to do with her life, but that's rendered moot when she feels guilty about the Inn possibly being closed without her taking over, and that leaving would "betray" everyone who's been nice to her and helping her all this time. The idea of choosing one's own job, even against the wishes of others, is abandoned because the character doesn't want to let anyone down.
- Rise didn't like the pressures and rigid lifestyle that comes from being a Teen Idol, including having to always be the smiling happy person that people want. Her manager, in fact, doesn't even deny how hard the life is on her, only saying that she can "use her pain as a foundation" and she should continue because she has talent. (This is basically media objectification.)After Rise finds out that she's being replaced, and that some people are inspired by "Risette", the idea of retiring from a dehumanizing and objectifying job is abandoned because the character doesn't want to let anyone down.
- Yumi's social link isn't in the link I provided above, but the assessment you stated doesn't contradict the original example. The end result still amounts to Yumi's complaints against her father abandoning her being dropped in favor of Yumi learning some lesson and seeing her resentment as selfish.
Like with a lot of examples about this and Broken Aesop, I can't help but feel as though this example essentially takes a certain reading about what a message is "supposed" to be and assumes that when it isn't, there's an inconsistency. In particular, I notice that this line of reasoning that assumes that the characters, who take the feelings of others into account, are denying their own, which is overly simplistic and fails to grasp the real underlying messages in the social links.
Yukiko's development goes through three stages. First, she's resigned to the idea that she must stay in Inaba for the rest of her life. Second, after facing her Shadow (and assuming that leaving is what she wanted- note that Shadows aren't 'all of a person) she decides that the only alternative is to leave, but doesn't feel entirely comfortable with the idea (believing that she'll never be able to return, and hoping that her inn closes down, which would essentially burn that bridge). The fact that she likes Inaba more than she initially realizes is hinted at when she gets offended when the reporter describes it as a boring town. As such, she comes to her third and final stage- choosing to stay in Inaba because it's her home and all the people she care for (with the possible exception of Yu) are there. She says in her "EX" event that she'd closed her eyes to opportunities for so long, so essentially, while she chose to stay in Inaba, she's able to view that choice in a more hopeful light.
Regarding Inoue, Rise does assume that he only sees her as something to be marketed, but it's revealed in Rank 8 that he does, in fact, believe in her, and had been hoping she would return, just like the fan who wrote letters to her did. With that event in mind, as well as the campaign against bullying Rise remembers, it's easy to see how Rise's attitude toward being an idol shifts, since she knows she can have a positive impact in people's lives. Similar to what she said while accepting her Shadow, Rise also accepts "Risette" as a part of herself, and realizes that by leaving showbiz, she was running away from that part just like she ran away from the person she was when she got bullied, so she's doing it for herself as much as she's doing it for her fans and her manager. She fully acknowledges what she's giving up by going back to being an idol, but now believes that it will be worth it.
For Yumi, the essential question is whether to make peace with her father and allow him to spend his final days with her. Her mother doesn't deny that he wronged both of them or say that Yumi's resentment is unjustified, but thinks that it's too cruel to let him die alone. Seeing her father trying to reconnect with her in his final days forces Yumi to recall the fonder memories she had with him.
If I had to describe one unifying theme behind these social links, it's essentially the characters in question being embittered by the bad they see in Yukiko's inheritance of the inn, Rise's idol career and Yumi's father, but coming to realize that there's good in them, too, thus leading to a realization once they come to terms with them. Some of the factors involved in the decision and the emotional weights thereof, may have changed, but that doesn't mean that the debate itself has.
Here's my issue with your assessments: Debate and Switch is when a story seems to bring up a topic of discussion or debate and then, before the topic or debate can come to a resolution, figures out a way to "change the subject" so to speak. How it does this can vary, but ultimately results in not actually concluding the original problem as presented.
In P4, the way the subject is "changed" is as follows: characters are unhappy with what they see as unfair or even harmful pressures placed upon them by society, but by the end of the story, the pressures themselves don't really go away such as the characters themselves change their outlooks on that pressure and find a way to make it bearable, if not enjoyable.
- Yukiko's actual feelings on the matter does not address what the problem was originally presented as: "Yukiko wants to decide her own fate because she feels trapped". When the problem is dropped at the end, it's because it's revealed that her "actual" problem is something else entirely. The original issue of making her own way to be happy versus doing what others want while feeling trapped, is rendered moot because she "realizes" she doesn't feel trapped at all.
- I don't agree with you about Rise because it's still semantics. It's semantics because we're legitimately told about all of the problems and issues Rise has with her fame and the objectification that comes with it. Her manager flat out admits that these problems are present, but he "believes in her" and thinks that she can "use her pain as a foundation". Again, the original problem as presented is "Rise is trapped in a job that dehumanizes her and demands that she suffer for the sake of her fans". But once again, it's revealed that the "actual" problem (what's preventing the character from being happy) is something else entirely.
- Again, Yumi's story questions why she should feel any connection or loyalty to a father who abandoned her and mother for her entire life. The original dilemma is ignored in favor of the feelings of the father, and in the end, she treats her own feelings has having been selfish. Once again, the "solution" to the problem comes from a change in the character, not in the situation.
I'm not disagreeing with what you think the underlying theme of the social links is, but I'm saying that's irrelevant to the Debate and Switch. In each case, these characters are presented as having an issue that comes down to "Do what I want and let everyone down, or do what everyone else wants and makes me unhappy." That issue, in all three cases, is eventually made moot when the character is convinced, or comes to decide on their own, that there are good things about whatever they were unhappy with that make the bad things okay to put up with.
So, my argument is that the points you are making, although valid, don't really address the Debate and Switch as the examples state.
Edited by KingZeal
I'm still not convinced that these points fit, and don't see my points as "semantics" but since we seem to be arguing in circles, I'll let it go.
The following was deleted:
- An arguable example occurs in Persona 4. It's a game about "reaching out for the truth", but virtually everything that might classify as "a complaint against society" conveniently turns out to be an untruth. It's justifiable, since this is a Japanese game and thus is unlikely to criticize the group over the individual, but there are lots of things that are said that could be taken by Western players are perfectly valid, but the narrative avoids debate by categorizing them all as evasions and self-deception. For example, Yukiko dislikes being forced to inherit her family's inn: turns out, what she really was worried about was having to do it all alone. The issue of not being able to choose her own job is thus not really addressed at all. Rise dislikes being seen as a media lust object and all the hassle that comes with pop stardom: turns out, she secretly enjoys being in the spotlight and goes back to the industry when it becomes clear she might be replaced. Her suffering while in that job is written off, and not really dealt with, as just something she has to suffer through, and no real understanding is directed at the issue of how everyone sees her as a media image. Yumi has a complaint about her father selfishly abandoning his wife and child. This is never addressed, because her father ends up dying in the hospital, and Yumi decides to live up to her name and "bear fruit" by dropping out of the drama club; the narrative avoids assessing her father's behavior at all by casting Yumi's misgivings as selfish. And the crowning example, there's a character in the game who has a lot of complaints about how impossible it is to be rewarded for your hard work in the current job system if you aren't talented. Whether or not these complaints are accurate is never really addressed, because who is it making these complaints? A psychotic serial killer who just uses it as justification for an insane plan to turn the world into fog-brained Shadows. Thus, his complaints about society can conveniently avoid being debated by the players, since they come out of a psychotic man-child's mouth.
I think these are actually good points. If we take out the "arguable" in the beginning, this should be workable.
Edited by 24.1.167.77
Removed:
- Death Note poses the question: does utopia justify the means if you plan on ending all crime by killing all criminals? The question is rendered moot by the fact that the perpetrator, Magnificent Bastard Light Yagami, develops from an arrogant sore loser into a Villain Protagonist with a god complex who kills all who oppose him. L, though, is only slightly better, opposing "Kira" not out of a sense of duty or justice, but because he's an arrogant sore loser as well, and finds fighting crime and solving complex mysteries a hobby. This was arguably for the better; who cares about morality debates when you've got Gambit Roulettes piling up like no other?
- In the manga L did act out of a sense of justice. The episode when he promises to himself to not let Kira get away with the murder of FBI operatives is the clearest illustration, but it was cut out from TV series. Also, Death Note was never really about whether Utopia Justifies the Means, but about the corruption by power, although the point was somewhat muddled in adaptations.
- This is also present in the way someone responds to Light trying to justify his actions.
- A lot of the morality debate is cut from the manga, and the final debate between Light and Near is cut down to its bare minimum, including Light expressing his belief that he's not only getting rid of the criminals, but creating a society where people are free to do good. Near similarly believes Kira's forcing his own views onto others under threat of death, "neither peaceful nor just," and asks everyone else what they think about it, to which they respond with tacit approval. While there is considerably more examination of the ramifications of Kira's new world order in the manga, the authors ultimately leave it up to the reader to decide, but note that Light was corrupted by having the power to kill at will.
The fact that Light becomes drunk with power is part of the debate. That's why first world nations aren't allowed to simply execute people without due process.
Hide / Show Replies
No. These are, in fact, separate questions.
- "Was Light corrupted by his power?" The answer is unambiguously yes.
- "Was Kira's stated goal, the creation of a perfect world by the elimination of all criminals, a good one?" That question is not answered, because Light himself doesn't care about it anymore. As the last section mentions, there isn't a clear answer to this question; it's for the reader to decide.
Both themes occupy a prominent place in the manga, but they're very much separate themes, and the fact that the first one can be answered allows the story to end without a hard answer to the second one.
To emphasize, these lines are from the trope description:
- The antagonist is originally set up as doing something that falls in the moral (and legal) gray area, then jumps off the slippery slope or is revealed to be a Straw Hypocrite.
- The protagonists are put into the morally gray situation, then another consideration makes it much more black-and-white. The decision is made on that consideration, with the original considerations becoming moot. No Third Option necessary, just a Second Question.
Removed:
- Averted earlier in Babylon 5, when the same Doctor decides to operate on a child despite the facts that his parents insist that the operation will cause him to lose his soul and become a demon. After the operation the child seems fine, and the parents accept him back. Then kill him, because they believe him to be an empty shell without a soul. (The episode leaves the subject of whether or not there's any basis for the belief ambiguous; the child is clearly healthier after the operation, but Franklin does notice what he dismisses as some air escaping when he makes his initial incision, and the soul is treated as a physical commodity in other parts of the series.) Ironically, since the episode aired medicine has advanced to the point that the procedure would not require an incision today and the entire plot would be avoided.
- The Mimbari could also test to see if he still had a soul afterwords.
The idea that souls can be detected in other episodes is fridge logic, not an example of this trope. The episode also isn't a debate and switch. Both sides take their case to their logical extremes: the doctor forcibly does the surgery and the parents kill the child.
- The Dark Knight Rises takes this approach in its discussion of class politics. The first half of the film focuses on the intrigues of Gotham's upper class and rich, unscrupulous businesspeople like Daggett, while working class characters like Bane and Selina imply or state outright that the people are tired of being abused by the rich and planning to revolt, with Selina telling Bruce that "there's a storm coming." Eventually, she gets her wish. Guess what happens after that? The film then drops the class issue completely and just treats Bane as a supervillain to be defeated.
The problem with this example is that the movie never brought up the issue involved in the first place. It's been clear from the start that Bane is working on Ra'z Al-ghul's plan and merely using Dagget for resources. the pre-existing social issues were exploited but they were never the focus, merely tools for Bane to turn Gotham into chaos. The movie had always been about Bruce trying to find himself in post-Dark Knight world and the ramifications of his actions at the end of the previous movie.