Follow TV Tropes
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: YMMV?, started by arromdee on Jan 27th 2011 at 7:55:04 PM
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.
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.
Actually, reading the example, the implication is that the teacher is portrayed as wrong and the person writing the example sees him as correct.
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.
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."
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.
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?
Cut this for three reasons:
Simply put, there is no "informed" in Palpatine's wrongness.
A-yep. As someone who roots for the Empire, their wrongness is... pretty clearly shown.
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.
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?
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.
A couple of examples are written to be a bit one-sided.
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.
Haven't seen School Of Rock so can't discuss it, but agreed on HP example, i've put it here for further discussion
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.
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.
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.
She was tattling them to Umbridge and the tortures of Umbridge were scar-causing. Cruel, gross, inhumane, but not disproportionate.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Removed these terrible Doctor Who examples. Deleted natter for clarity.
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.
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.
The Dalek was changing, and the Doctor wasn't listening.
This example seems to be arguing with itself. Unintentional or not, she killed the prisoner they were attempting to negotiate with.
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.
Oww. That's a discussion.
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.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?