Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / InformedWrongness

Go To

Dec 2nd 2016 at 12:16:15 PM •••

Cut this:

The Flim-Flam brothers were explicitly shown as sacrificing quality to increase speed and volume, in order to win the contest. We don't know if their method was "superior" because they changed it in order to win. Applejack's coda may be overly simplistic, but it's correct in the context of the episode.

Oct 16th 2016 at 4:50:15 AM •••

  • To an extent, this was inflicted upon Lelouch, late in Code Geass R2, when he is betrayed by the Black Knights on accusation of using them as pawns and abandoning them, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. In addition, the Britannian spy who watched over Lelouch happens to have been secretly romantically involved with Ohgi and she also supported the case against Lelouch, but this bit of hypocrisy is never pointed out. Whether or not Lelouch himself deserved to face Laser-Guided Karma can be debated, as well as what would be the appropriate punishment. However, his rebellion was the lesser of two evils and had led to the formation of a legitimate international front to fight Britannia for the liberation of all numbered areas, which puts his record as Zero in more of a positive light than how it was presented during the betrayal scenario.
    • What makes it even worse is that they take everything about Lelouch from one of their worst enemies, the very man that is helping to lead the efforts of The Empire to crush their attempt at freeing their homeland, yet they believe him without asking for any sort of proof, or remembering that Lelouch had been responsible for many of their successes.
The first bullet misses the point of Black Knights accusation, as it was never about creating the rebellion in the first place. The doubts on Zero started shortly before Tokyo battle, when one of Shiseiken revealed that Zero ordered an attack on defenceless research facility, and later were deepened when it was revealed that Zero has Geass. What's more when they confronted Zero, he outright admitted that he was using them all along, so Black Knights being pissed is understandable. The second bullet is blatantly false. Schneisell did provide them with evidence that Zero is responsible for Euphinator incident, a taped confession from Lelouch himself. None of the sides involved were supposed to be clearly wrong, Black Knights lacked to full context, and Zero was very questionable, morally grey character to begin with.

Aug 19th 2016 at 3:32:14 AM •••

  • Similarly, in Arthur's episode "Arthur's Big Hit", Arthur punches D.W. after the latter throws the former's model airplane out the window even after Arthur has repeatedly told her not to touch it. For that, Arthur's parents punish him while D.W. gets away scott-free, and when Binky punches Arthur the next day (in peer pressure by his friends), Arthur's parents show him No Sympathy and see that moment as Laser-Guided Karma instead. If that's not enough, when Arthur apologizes to D.W. for hitting her, D.W. responds by giving him a Backhanded Apology and uses being a child as an excuse for committing such a reprehensible act. This episode made Arthur seem like the jerk while D.W., who is just as much in the wrong, if not more so, is the innocent one of the two.
I removed example earlier and i explained why. It was added back with no explanation, so i'm putting it here to stop this Edit War. Beating little girls in anger is NOT Informed Wrongness, and nobody will tell me that it's ok to beat kids. There are other tropes, more fitting to this situation, You can call DW Unintentionally Unsympathetic since she's to look like innocent victim when she was the one who caused harm in the first place. You can call Arthur Unintentionally Sympathetic if you think he's the real victim here. You can place DW under Karma Houdini for getting away with destroying that plane. You can even claim that Strawman Has a Point when you think Arthur was right when he explained why he hit her. But don't tell me that beating a little girl in anger is simply not wrong.

Jul 25th 2016 at 12:41:19 AM •••

Cut this:

  • In one episode of The Simpsons "Four Great Women and a Manicure", Maggie's preschool teacher tells her she shouldn't exert herself so much, she should be average like all the other kids. What he could have said was, "You're using up a limited supply of materials, which I have to pay for out of my own meager salary. I wish you'd leave some for the others. Also, it's nice that you're so smart, but sometimes smart people focus on complexity and overlook quick and simple solutions." Then he could have challenged her to do something amazing with *only* a square of construction paper, an empty stapler and a paper clip.

This isn't an example of this trope. If it was, the show would expect us to see the teacher as correct. It's clear we were supposed to see the teacher as a Jerkass enforcing arbitrary rules of "fairness" and "everyone gets a trophy" style equality.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 25th 2016 at 12:21:34 PM •••

Actually, reading the example, the implication is that the teacher is portrayed as wrong and the person writing the example sees him as correct.

Jul 27th 2016 at 11:00:17 AM •••

You're sort of half right. I think the teacher is portrayed as a Jerk Ass. But it's for the wrong reason. "Be ordinary!" is a bad attitude on the teacher's part. "Be considerate!" seems more acceptable, but the writers didn't want to give the teacher a more sensible reason for his attitude.

Maggie should be considerate of others and give others a chance to use some of the materials. Although, she could disassemble her constructions and then let the other kids use the materials—but the glue couldn't be reused, and it would be pretty messy.

The writers wanted to make a point about artists being oppressed, not about artists being annoying.

Then again, maybe Freezer is right. This could be a different trope. I just read the description for the trope, "Right for the wrong reasons", but that doesn't quite seem to fit, either.

I was thinking of suggesting a new trope, "Strawman had a different point", where the audience agrees with the strawman for reasons the creator of the work doesn't mention. This would be one example.

Another example would be the Star Trek entry I made here, at the same time I entered the Simpsons entry.

But I don't know how many would agree with me about Maggie. Of course I don't have anything against her, and I agree lots of teachers have bad attitudes.

Jul 27th 2016 at 1:20:09 PM •••

The thing with the entry is it's basically changing the teacher's position. She's not saying "be considerate," she's saying "be average."

Feb 7th 2016 at 2:04:07 AM •••

  • In Battlestar Galactica, the humans developed a virus capable of killing every Cylon that was linked to the collective, which was every Cylon in the universe except Athena. The writers obviously expect us to side with Helo and Athena against this genocide. The problem is that everything up to that point suggested that the genocide is justified. The Cylons had already killed countless billions of people, leaving a remnant of about 50,000 that they were still trying to kill. There was no indication at the time of any dissent within the linked Cylons towards killing humans. Note that because of the link, every Cylon except for a few deep undercover agents knew of the impending attack upon the humans ahead of time, and none of them attempted to warn the humans about that. And the odds of survival for the remaining humans without using the virus appeared infinitesimally low. A counterargument is that the genocide is not advisable because it would not be guaranteed to be total (there is a nonzero, and maybe nontrivial, possibility that the Cylons can get a warning out in time for the furthest away resurrection ships out of range to disconnect themselves and avoid the plague spread), and doing it and failing to get a 100.00% kill would motivate the surviving Cylons to absolutely exterminate the human race without the slightest possibility of reconciliation or even just eventually giving up on the pursuit, thus locking humanity into total doom (as the only possibilities for humanity are Cylons exterminate humanity, humans exterminate Cylons, or some type of eventual peaceful resolution... and a failed genocide attempts means #2 is not achievable and #3 is no longer possible). Unfortunately for the episode quality that's not the argument Helo made, so he still looks like an idiot.

Taken at face value that would be Designated Evil not this, since Informed Wrongness is about action being considered wrong despite not being it in aqny way, while genocide even when seems justified still would be morally gray. The reson that i'm not simply moving it there is that example argues with itself, claiming that this would still be proiblematic move, it's just the reasons why this would be bad are wrong. Right now it's out but putting it for debate whether or not it's Designated Evil or Informed Wrongness or something else or not trope at all.

Edited by NNinja
Jan 14th 2016 at 11:52:17 PM •••

Ok we have some Logic Bomb right here in the description. The page trope says that this trope taken to extremes can become Designated Evil, while Designated Evil describe this as DE taken to Logical Extreme when action portrayed as wrong isn't wrong in any context. This is circular, which one is which ones exagaration or what?

Dec 21st 2015 at 10:18:24 AM •••

  • It has become increasingly popular in some circles to argue The Empire in Star Wars is not really as villainous as the films imply, if analyzed impartially. Emperor Palpatine destroys the democratic system of the Old Republic and consolidates power in his own hands, prompting a violent rebellion, but the prequel films reveal that the Old Republic's political system was, in fact, dysfunctional, corrupt, and quite unpopular, and Palpatine's consolidation of power which is approved every step of the way by the Republic's checks-and-balances was a sensible response in the context of the time. A great deal of the film's moral universe requires a flat willingness to just accept the premise that anyone working for the "Dark Side" can never be up to any good.

Cut this for three reasons:

  1. Taken at face value, this is Alternative Character Interpretation, not this trope.
  2. It utterly ignores all the horrible things Palpatine did to gain power.
  3. All the evidence Palpatine was working some "greater good" angle (Forming The Empire to fortify the galaxy against the Vuzang Vong) were added in as part of the Extended Universe. That assumes that The Empire was the only way, and not merely the way that put him in charge.

Simply put, there is no "informed" in Palpatine's wrongness.

Hide/Show Replies
Dec 21st 2015 at 2:20:08 PM •••

A-yep. As someone who roots for the Empire, their wrongness is... pretty clearly shown.

Sep 5th 2015 at 10:59:31 PM •••

Glee: What the frack? Someone put in that Finn didn't intentionally out Santana. That's exactly what he did. In a moment of anger, he said loudly, for all to hear, "Why don't you come out of the closet?" Yeah, he was justified in his anger, and the point about Santana's nastiness is true, but by no stretch of the imagination was it unintentional. The words that came out of his mouth-hole were specifically meant to communicate to everyone within earshot that Santana was a lesbian.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 6th 2015 at 7:32:21 PM •••

That's true, but he had no idea that he was being videotaped or that it would be televised. Maybe the example should be worded to include that?

Jun 18th 2014 at 12:26:51 PM •••

The Schism one seems a bit one-sided as well. In particular, "Wolverine, disregarding the kids part in their victory..." He didn't oppose kids fighting because he thought they wouldn't be good at it; the fact they were involved proved his point that they shouldn't be in situations where they had to.

It's also made clear that Logan has no problem with training the kids to defend themselves and others and become superheroes if they want; what he opposes is Cyke's "Being a mutant automatically means that you are involved in a war" attitude, as does Professor X later, which rather implies it's not the same thing the X-Men have always done.

Edited by 86.138.213.44
Oct 29th 2013 at 7:33:21 PM •••

A couple of examples are written to be a bit one-sided.

  • School Of Rock - Patty was still doing to Ned exactly what Dewey was and she was arguably worse. She was borderline emotionally abusive. It's Ned's choice whether he wants to let Dewey stay with him and not hers, yet she was manipulating him into doing what she wanted under the guise that it was what Ned 'really wanted'. And again it's Ned's choice whether or not he wants to press charges against Dewey since he's the wronged party. All Patty seems to care about is getting one over on Dewey so she can take the moral high ground.
  • Harry Potter - Marietta outright betrayed an entire group of students to a teacher who is known to give detentions where they have to carve lines in their skin and write with their own blood. A big theme of the series is that choices define people and that was Marietta's choice.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 29th 2014 at 3:30:57 PM •••

I totally agree with you on Marietta Edgecombe. No one's job was in any danger, as long as she kept her mouth shut. And like Harry pointed out, Ron and Ginny and Fred and George also had family working for the ministry, and they had never dreamed of betraying the DA. So while Marietta becoming deformed for life probably was too much, she deserved some come-upance.

Jan 6th 2016 at 1:43:36 PM •••

Haven't seen School Of Rock so can't discuss it, but agreed on HP example, i've put it here for further discussion

  • Cho Chang and Marietta Edgecomb in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. While the latter attempting to rat out the DA was a dick move, she did it out of fear that her mother would lose her job at the Ministry of Magic (or worse, considering Umbridge's disciplinary methods). The former gets it even worse. Harry dumps her because she dared to call Hermione out on deforming her only friend after Cedric died, despite the fact that she had every right to. However, Harry's behavior is more understandable when you consider what consequences resulted from ratting out the DA, and those consequences were Dumbledore having to flee Hogwarts as a presumed criminal and thus giving Umbridge even more arbitrary power over all the students (which, among other things, leads to Umbridge torturing numerous students, including eleven-year-olds). It also left the school vulnerable to attack by Voldemort, as Dumbledore was "the only one he ever feared". Not to mention the fact that the DA could no longer hold meetings, meaning that students were less able to defend themselves in the future.
First of all example argues with itself, secondly while Hermione giving permascars to Marietta maight've been disproportionate retribution Marietta's wrongness wasn't informed since it almost got 28 students thrown out of school for trying to learn something. About Cho as far as i rmember it wasn't harry who dumped her for being pissed at Hermione but it was Cho who dumped him for defending her, Harry even pointed out that Marietta betrayed Cho as well. Not to mention that as far as i remember it was implied that Chowas simply jealous of Hermione.

Jan 7th 2016 at 6:07:43 AM •••

Disproportionate Retribution is the trope at play here, not Informed Wrongness. The entry doesn't even try to say that she wasn't doing some wrong.

Jan 7th 2016 at 8:06:29 AM •••

There's still a bit a Strawman Has a Point. Indeed what Marietta did was wrong and Cho's arguments to defend her are weak, still Marietta is going to pay for her single mistake for the rest of her life which really is disproportionate. Also if Hermione had told about the jinx to all members (as Cho points out), Marietta probably wouldn't have betrayed.

Edited by Silverblade2
Jan 7th 2016 at 8:23:37 AM •••

Agreed. But it's not informed wrongness because it really is shown to be wrong. There's Disproportionate Retribution, Strawman Has a Point, and probably Idiot Ball at play here, but not Informed Wrongness.

Jan 7th 2016 at 10:23:52 AM •••

She was tattling them to Umbridge and the tortures of Umbridge were scar-causing. Cruel, gross, inhumane, but not disproportionate.

Jun 29th 2013 at 12:44:48 PM •••

In the D&D example, I don't understand how creating a golem is "enslaving a sapient being". You're creating an artificial construct that responds to your commands, it isn't capable of exercising judgment. That would be like saying that a robot or a computer is sapient just because it can follow instructions.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 6th 2013 at 8:46:05 AM •••

I believe the exact details of what a Golem is vary by edition, but at least some sources say that there's a theoretically-sapient spirit inside it, and that's why it can, y'know, move despite being otherwise made of rock.

May 20th 2013 at 2:55:40 PM •••

Yea, Star Wars? The Empire? No. We are explicitly shown in the first twenty minutes of the first film made in the entire franchise that they will engage in mass genocide essentially for the hell of it.

Just because other characters are morally grey doesn't actually make them "right". You are aware that a lot of people can also be wrong too, right?

Edited by 69.172.221.4 Hide/Show Replies
Aug 6th 2013 at 8:50:43 AM •••

The argument could be made that they are only willing to do such wrong things because the Emperor himself is both a Complete Monster and thoroughly able to execute anyone who doesn't press the fire button when they're told to... Then again, I suppose that is exactly why they shouldn't be supporting a system that allows a man like Palpatine to gain such power in the first place.

Sep 30th 2012 at 3:44:04 AM •••

The Jack Chick example: The tail bone is an anchor point for muscles, but he puts it really really poorly. I consider whoever writes these tracts a horrible writer, and a poor researcher of the Bible. If you look up many of the verses in context, they don't mean what he says they mean. Even in non-Bible related items, he Did Not Do the Research.

Aug 5th 2011 at 9:59:49 AM •••

Removed these terrible Doctor Who examples. Deleted natter for clarity.

  • Arthur Coleman Winters in Doctor Who. He's bad because he's some arrogant American, coming in to take over the situation! See, JUST LIKE BUSH! HATE HIM. And you probably would hate him... if the Prime Minster was anyone except the Master, who proceeds to take over the world before being defeated by the Doctor, who's special enough to depose whatever politicians he sees fit without repercussions.

He's an ass and controlling, but he's not portrayed as wrong; he just got on the Master's bad side and became the first casualty because Winters wasn't the Toclafane's master.

  • When the Human Doctor killed off all the Daleks in "Journey's End", it appeared to be not only a perfectly reasonable way to handle the situation, but one that had been done very similarly before several times, in LESS dire circumstances. However, this time, it was seen as a terrible genocide by the (normal) Doctor, while normally doing the EXACT same action just causes minor angst.

It's not that he committed genocide, it was that he was born in the midsts of war and one of the first things he did was committing genocide.

  • Similarly, in "Dalek", Rose (lightly) implies that the Doctor is succumbing to his darker urges... because he points a gun at a Dalek that just finished slaughtering a number of innocent people. It made more sense when I was watching...

The Dalek was changing, and the Doctor wasn't listening.

  • Ambrose in "Cold Blood" gets this, when she's treated like the Devil by the Doctor despite her being hardly the most evil or bloodthirsty of those in the episode. Then again, her actions — while perhaps understandable — are also pretty much directly responsible for screwing up a major, lasting peace he was within a hair's breadth of negotiating between the humans and Silurians and which he'd previously failed at at least two times, so you can kind of understand him being a bit pissed off with her.

This example seems to be arguing with itself. Unintentional or not, she killed the prisoner they were attempting to negotiate with.

  • Harriet Jones in "The Christmas Invasion" destroys a retreating Sycorax vessel after they'd promised not to return (in a clear reference to Margaret Thatcher's similar orders towards the General Belgrano during the Falklands War), prompting the Doctor to denounce her in outrage and bring down her entire government. While the episode seems to be urging us to accept the Doctor's view on this, many note that Jones actually has a point; the Sycorax had already proved themselves untrustworthy, the Doctor's not always around to help them and Earth needs to be able to defend itself. Many in fact view the Doctor as being in the wrong, coming off as unreasonably self-righteous and judgmental.

It didn't urge us to accept it. It just showed how easy the Doctor could take down a government when pissed. I don't even know if either were portrayed as "in the wrong", at least explicitly.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 26th 2014 at 12:19:42 AM •••

Doctor Who does this a lot.It is a family show, so you can't have The Doctor act like Walter White or Dexter Morgan,but the writers also want us to believe there is a dark side to him.Hence,there is a certain struggle for them.There best way to do that at this point is create instances of Designated Evil.A good example is Water Of Mars,the Doctor was essentially treated as being wrong for breaking the Fixed Point rule (which at the time seemed more like a rule that was base on ethics then actual physical law). We are meant to believe the Doctor was wrong for not following an arbitrary rule and saving 3 human lives(2,if you take the suicide into account) while proposing a way the future could still be prosperous for humankind without having Adelaide die.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report