Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / DontShootTheMessage

Go To



One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with the ''opposite'' of the work's position, not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition. This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Also contract HardTruthAesop, when AnAesop is viewed as valid despite its unpleasantness due to it's handling in the work. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy. If this occurs InUniverse, it's JerkassHasAPoint.

to:

One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with the ''opposite'' of the work's position, not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition. This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Also contract HardTruthAesop, when AnAesop is viewed as valid despite its unpleasantness due to it's its handling in the work. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy. If this occurs InUniverse, it's JerkassHasAPoint.


Worse yet is the {{Aesop}} the show attempts to give: The logic of its arguments is [[BrokenAesop faulty]], if not [[InsaneTrollLogic nonsensical]], its world-view is unnuanced, the characters frequently [[CharacterFilibuster burst into boring monologues]] [[WriterOnBoard concerning what are almost certainly the author's opinions on the subject]], those who disagree with the opinion are [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong dismissed unsatisfactorily]], and the general preachiness makes it a chore to get through.

to:

Worse yet is the {{Aesop}} the show attempts to give: The logic of its arguments is [[BrokenAesop faulty]], hypocritical]], if not [[InsaneTrollLogic nonsensical]], its world-view is unnuanced, the characters frequently [[CharacterFilibuster burst into boring monologues]] [[WriterOnBoard concerning what are almost certainly the author's opinions on the subject]], those who disagree with the opinion are [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong dismissed unsatisfactorily]], and the general preachiness makes it a chore to get through.


One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with the ''opposite'' of the work's position, not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition. This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy. If this occurs InUniverse, it's JerkassHasAPoint.

to:

One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with the ''opposite'' of the work's position, not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition. This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Also contract HardTruthAesop, when AnAesop is viewed as valid despite it's unpleasantness due to it's handling in the work. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy. If this occurs InUniverse, it's JerkassHasAPoint.


->When you're an asshole, it doesn't matter how right you are. Nobody wants to give you the satisfaction.
-->--'''Morty Smith''', ''WesternAnimation/RickAndMorty''

to:

->When ->''"When you're an asshole, it doesn't matter how right you are. Nobody wants to give you the satisfaction.
-->--'''Morty
satisfaction."''
-->-- '''Morty
Smith''', ''WesternAnimation/RickAndMorty''


->''"If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, \\
is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, \\
be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?"''
-->-- '''Fluellen''', ''Theatre/HenryV''

to:

->''"If ->When you're an asshole, it doesn't matter how right you are. Nobody wants to give you the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, \\
is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, \\
be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?"''
-->-- '''Fluellen''', ''Theatre/HenryV''
satisfaction.
-->--'''Morty Smith''', ''WesternAnimation/RickAndMorty''




to:

%% Quote changed per thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1327331003042025100&page=243


One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with the ''opposite'' of the work's position, not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition. This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy.

to:

One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with the ''opposite'' of the work's position, not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition. This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy.
fallacy. If this occurs InUniverse, it's JerkassHasAPoint.


And the worst part? ''You actually '''agree''' with what the work is trying to say''.

Related to the concept of the CluelessAesop, Don't Shoot the Message is the phenomenon that results when viewers feel the need to explain that while they are in agreement with the message attempted by a work, they hate the delivery (typically for being {{anvilicious}}) enough that it is still intolerable. They might consider the messenger to be RightForTheWrongReasons, or the message to be too [[BlackAndWhiteMorality oversimplified]] or laden with [[TheWarOnStraw straw]]. The work is seen as preachy, even to [[ConfirmationBias people who agree with the message]]. The above description gives an extreme hypothetical, but you do not need to think something is DarthWiki/SoBadItsHorrible to qualify: Merely dislike it for any of a hundred reasons unrelated to its Aesop.

to:

And the worst part? part of all of this? ''You actually '''agree''' with what the work is trying to say''.

Related to the concept of the CluelessAesop, Don't Shoot the Message is the phenomenon that results when viewers feel the need to explain that that, while they are in agreement with the message attempted by a work, they hate the delivery (typically for being {{anvilicious}}) enough that it is they still intolerable.find the work intolerable. Quite often, this is because they consider the message's delivery to be [[{{Anvilicious}} about as subtle as an anvil to the face]] in a way that drags the whole work down. They might consider the messenger to be RightForTheWrongReasons, or the message to be too [[BlackAndWhiteMorality oversimplified]] or laden with [[TheWarOnStraw straw]]. The work is seen as preachy, even to [[ConfirmationBias people who agree with the message]]. The above description gives an extreme hypothetical, but you do not need to think something a work is DarthWiki/SoBadItsHorrible to qualify: Merely qualify; you merely have to dislike it for any of a hundred reasons unrelated to its Aesop.



The lines have been further blurred with the rise of entertainment specifically designed to appeal to various spots on political and social spectra, and not others... style mixes with substance to such an extent that a rejection of one is seen as a rejection of the other. To take several broad examples: Certainly there are conservatives who dislike Ann Coulter or Radio/GlennBeck, and liberals who dislike Creator/MichaelMoore or Creator/KeithOlbermann. There are fundamentalist Christians who can't stand the ''Film/LeftBehind'' series or ''ComicBook/ChickTracts,'' and atheists who don't like having Sam Harris or Bill Maher as spokesmen. There is, of course, nothing objectively wrong with liking any of these things (yes... [[StrawmanPolitical even that one]]). However, the fact remains that those that like the politics, but not how it is presented, often feel the distinct need to mention the fact. This tends to pop up within Administrivia/{{natter}} upon this very wiki, as if the mere fact that someone has problems with the Roman Catholic Church lends more credence to his negative opinion about ''Literature/TheDaVinciCode''.

One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with something like the ''opposite'' of the work's position (though not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition). This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy.

to:

The lines have been further blurred with the rise of entertainment specifically designed to appeal to various spots on political and social spectra, and not others... style others. Style mixes with substance to such an extent that a rejection of one is seen as a rejection of the other. To take several broad examples: Certainly there are conservatives who dislike Ann Coulter or Radio/GlennBeck, and liberals who dislike Creator/MichaelMoore or Creator/KeithOlbermann. There are fundamentalist Christians who can't stand the ''Film/LeftBehind'' series or ''ComicBook/ChickTracts,'' and atheists who don't like having Sam Harris or Bill Maher as spokesmen. There is, of course, nothing objectively wrong with liking any of these things (yes... [[StrawmanPolitical even that one]]). However, the fact remains that those that like the politics, but not how it is presented, often feel the distinct need to mention the fact. This tends to pop up within Administrivia/{{natter}} upon this very wiki, as if the mere fact that that, say, someone has problems with the Roman Catholic Church lends more credence to his negative opinion about ''Literature/TheDaVinciCode''.

One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with something like the ''opposite'' of the work's position (though position, not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition).opposition. This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy.


The lines have been further blurred with the rise of entertainment specifically designed to appeal to various spots on political and social spectra, and not others... style mixes with substance to such an extent that a rejection of one is seen as a rejection of the other. To take several broad examples: Certainly there are conservatives who dislike Ann Coulter or UsefulNotes/GlennBeck, and liberals who dislike Creator/MichaelMoore or Creator/KeithOlbermann. There are fundamentalist Christians who can't stand the ''Film/LeftBehind'' series or ''ComicBook/ChickTracts,'' and atheists who don't like having Sam Harris or Bill Maher as spokesmen. There is, of course, nothing objectively wrong with liking any of these things (yes... [[StrawmanPolitical even that one]]). However, the fact remains that those that like the politics, but not how it is presented, often feel the distinct need to mention the fact. This tends to pop up within Administrivia/{{natter}} upon this very wiki, as if the mere fact that someone has problems with the Roman Catholic Church lends more credence to his negative opinion about ''Literature/TheDaVinciCode''.

to:

The lines have been further blurred with the rise of entertainment specifically designed to appeal to various spots on political and social spectra, and not others... style mixes with substance to such an extent that a rejection of one is seen as a rejection of the other. To take several broad examples: Certainly there are conservatives who dislike Ann Coulter or UsefulNotes/GlennBeck, Radio/GlennBeck, and liberals who dislike Creator/MichaelMoore or Creator/KeithOlbermann. There are fundamentalist Christians who can't stand the ''Film/LeftBehind'' series or ''ComicBook/ChickTracts,'' and atheists who don't like having Sam Harris or Bill Maher as spokesmen. There is, of course, nothing objectively wrong with liking any of these things (yes... [[StrawmanPolitical even that one]]). However, the fact remains that those that like the politics, but not how it is presented, often feel the distinct need to mention the fact. This tends to pop up within Administrivia/{{natter}} upon this very wiki, as if the mere fact that someone has problems with the Roman Catholic Church lends more credence to his negative opinion about ''Literature/TheDaVinciCode''.


->''"If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?"''

to:

->''"If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, \\
is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, \\
be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?"''


->''If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?''
-->--'''Fluellen''', ''Theatre/HenryV''

to:

->''If ->''"If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?''
-->--'''Fluellen''',
coxcomb?"''
-->-- '''Fluellen''',
''Theatre/HenryV''


->"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with bad arguments."
-->--'''Creator/FriedrichNietzsche'''

to:

->"The most perfidious way of harming ->''If the enemy is an ass and a cause consists of defending fool and a prating coxcomb, is it deliberately with bad arguments."
-->--'''Creator/FriedrichNietzsche'''
meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?''
-->--'''Fluellen''', ''Theatre/HenryV''


->''"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view I hold dear."''
-->-- '''Daniel Dennett'''

to:

->''"There's nothing I like less than ->"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with bad arguments for a view I hold dear."''
-->-- '''Daniel Dennett'''
arguments."
-->--'''Creator/FriedrichNietzsche'''


Worse yet is the {{Aesop}} the show attempts to give: The logic of its arguments is [[BrokenAesop faulty]], its world-view is unnuanced, the characters frequently [[CharacterFilibuster burst into boring monologues concerning what are almost certainly the author's opinions on the subject]], those who disagree with the opinion are [[WriterOnBoard dismissed unsatisfactorily]], and the general preachiness makes it a chore to get through.

to:

Worse yet is the {{Aesop}} the show attempts to give: The logic of its arguments is [[BrokenAesop faulty]], if not [[InsaneTrollLogic nonsensical]], its world-view is unnuanced, the characters frequently [[CharacterFilibuster burst into boring monologues monologues]] [[WriterOnBoard concerning what are almost certainly the author's opinions on the subject]], those who disagree with the opinion are [[WriterOnBoard [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong dismissed unsatisfactorily]], and the general preachiness makes it a chore to get through.


One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with something like the ''opposite'' of the work's position (though not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition). This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly valid argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy.

to:

One possible form this could take is a SpaceWhaleAesop. Contrast this with StrawmanHasAPoint, when one can't help but agree with something like the ''opposite'' of the work's position (though not so much because of one's prior beliefs as because the work did such a bad job of portraying the opposition). This could also lead to a LogicBomb if your reason for shooting the message is because of the messenger's hypocrisy. Compare StealthParody, which can differ from this trope only in creator intent, and due to PoesLaw may be confused for each other. See also FallacyFallacy, when a perfectly valid cogent argument gets wrongfully dismissed as being "wrong" just because it uses a fallacy.


An {{inverted trope}} of SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped, where a work is ''improved'' by the inclusion of some necessary moralizing.

to:

An {{inverted trope}} InvertedTrope of SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped, where a work is ''improved'' by the inclusion of some necessary moralizing.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 56

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report