Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
* '''The thing has legitimate negative effects, but also benefits which are downplayed or ignored''': For instance, the message "NewTechnologyIsEvil" (or a similar FantasticAesop involving magic) is often delivered as follows: The story introduces some piece of AppliedPhlebotinum which proves to be greatly useful to the characters (either solving some problem they were facing or otherwise making their lives easier). Then, something bad will happen as a result of someone either using the thing carelessly or using it to excess. Yet rather than learning to use the thing wisely, the characters decide that they're better off without it, happily throwing the baby out with the bath water.
to:
* '''The thing has legitimate negative effects, but also benefits which are downplayed or ignored''': For instance, the message "NewTechnologyIsEvil" (or a similar FantasticAesop involving magic) is often delivered as follows: The story introduces some piece of AppliedPhlebotinum which proves to be greatly useful to the characters (either solving some problem they were facing or otherwise making their lives easier). Then, something bad will happen happens as a result of someone either using the thing carelessly or using it to excess. Yet rather than learning to use the thing wisely, the characters decide that they're better off without it, happily throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
* '''A character's actions appear immoral when viewed in isolation, but are actually justified given the circumstances''': One of the best examples here would be the many superhero works which play the ThouSHaltNotKill card as the hero has the villain on the ropes. In quite a few cases, the villain will have killed innocent people after either [[CardboardPrison escaping from prison multiple times]], proving to be [[VillainWithGoodPublicity too influential to prosecute]], or otherwise being in such a position that killing them is the only way to ensure that they don't kill anyone else.
to:
* '''A character's actions appear immoral when viewed in isolation, but are actually justified given the circumstances''': One of the best examples here would be the many superhero works which play the ThouSHaltNotKill ThouShaltNotKill card as the hero has the villain on the ropes. In quite a few cases, the villain will have killed innocent people after either [[CardboardPrison escaping from prison multiple times]], proving to be [[VillainWithGoodPublicity too influential to prosecute]], or otherwise being in such a position that killing them is the only way to ensure that they don't kill anyone else.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
* '''The thing has legitimate negative effects, but also benefits which are downplayed or ignored''': For instance, the message "NewTechnologyIsEvil" (or a similar FantasticAesop involving magic) is often delivered as follows: The story introduces some piece of AppliedPhlebotinum which proves to be greatly useful to the characters (either solving some problem they were facing or otherwise making their lives easier). Then, something bad will happen as a result of someone either using the thing carelessly or using it to excess. Yes rather than learning to use the thing wisely, the characters decide that they're better off without it, happily throwing the baby out with the bath water.
to:
* '''The thing has legitimate negative effects, but also benefits which are downplayed or ignored''': For instance, the message "NewTechnologyIsEvil" (or a similar FantasticAesop involving magic) is often delivered as follows: The story introduces some piece of AppliedPhlebotinum which proves to be greatly useful to the characters (either solving some problem they were facing or otherwise making their lives easier). Then, something bad will happen as a result of someone either using the thing carelessly or using it to excess. Yes Yet rather than learning to use the thing wisely, the characters decide that they're better off without it, happily throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
* '''A character's actions appear immoral when viewed in isolation, but are actually justified given the circumstances''': One of the best examples here would be the many superhero works which play the ThouSHaltNotKill card as the hero has the villain on the ropes. In quite a few cases, the villain will have killed innocent people after either [[CardboardPrison escaping from prison multiple times]], proving to be [[VillainWithGoodPublicity too influential to prosecute]], or otherwise being in such a position that killing them is the only way to ensure that they don't kill anyone else.
to:
* '''A character's actions appear immoral when viewed in isolation, but are actually justified given the circumstances''': One of the best examples here would be the many superhero works which play the ThouSHaltNotKill card as the hero has the villain on the ropes. In quite a few cases, the villain will have killed innocent people after either [[CardboardPrison escaping from prison multiple times]], proving to be [[VillainWithGoodPublicity too influential to prosecute]], or otherwise being in such a position that killing them is the only way to ensure that they don't kill anyone else.else.
* '''The thing has legitimate negative effects, but also benefits which are downplayed or ignored''': For instance, the message "NewTechnologyIsEvil" (or a similar FantasticAesop involving magic) is often delivered as follows: The story introduces some piece of AppliedPhlebotinum which proves to be greatly useful to the characters (either solving some problem they were facing or otherwise making their lives easier). Then, something bad will happen as a result of someone either using the thing carelessly or using it to excess. Yes rather than learning to use the thing wisely, the characters decide that they're better off without it, happily throwing the baby out with the bath water.
* '''The thing has legitimate negative effects, but also benefits which are downplayed or ignored''': For instance, the message "NewTechnologyIsEvil" (or a similar FantasticAesop involving magic) is often delivered as follows: The story introduces some piece of AppliedPhlebotinum which proves to be greatly useful to the characters (either solving some problem they were facing or otherwise making their lives easier). Then, something bad will happen as a result of someone either using the thing carelessly or using it to excess. Yes rather than learning to use the thing wisely, the characters decide that they're better off without it, happily throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* '''Characters are played as immoral for disbelieving in the supernatural''': This can overlap with the "ignorance" one if their disbelief in the supernatural results in them harming or inconveniencing a supernatural entity. Even if it doesn't, though, a character may be portrayed as TheBore or a stick-in-the-mud for not believing in a supernatural thing, person, or creature that turns out to actually exist. While these characters are always factually wrong, they're often portrayed as morally wrong or having the wrong attitude as well. This can be particularly annoying to audiences if the thing really ''was'' unlikely to exist within the show's universe. Commonly seen in a SavingChristmas plot involving Santa.
to:
* '''Characters are played as immoral for disbelieving in the supernatural''': This can overlap with the "ignorance" one if their disbelief in the supernatural results in them harming or inconveniencing a supernatural entity. Even if it doesn't, though, a character may be portrayed as TheBore or a stick-in-the-mud for not believing in a supernatural thing, person, or creature that turns out to actually exist. While these characters are always factually wrong, they're often portrayed as morally wrong or having the wrong attitude as well. This can be particularly annoying to audiences if the thing really ''was'' unlikely to exist within the show's universe. Commonly seen in a SavingChristmas plot involving Santa.Santa.
* '''A character's actions appear immoral when viewed in isolation, but are actually justified given the circumstances''': One of the best examples here would be the many superhero works which play the ThouSHaltNotKill card as the hero has the villain on the ropes. In quite a few cases, the villain will have killed innocent people after either [[CardboardPrison escaping from prison multiple times]], proving to be [[VillainWithGoodPublicity too influential to prosecute]], or otherwise being in such a position that killing them is the only way to ensure that they don't kill anyone else.
* '''A character's actions appear immoral when viewed in isolation, but are actually justified given the circumstances''': One of the best examples here would be the many superhero works which play the ThouSHaltNotKill card as the hero has the villain on the ropes. In quite a few cases, the villain will have killed innocent people after either [[CardboardPrison escaping from prison multiple times]], proving to be [[VillainWithGoodPublicity too influential to prosecute]], or otherwise being in such a position that killing them is the only way to ensure that they don't kill anyone else.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 2 (click to see context) :
[[folder:Common Reasons for Informed Wrongness]]
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
* '''Characters are played as immoral for disbelieving in the supernatural''': This can overlap with the "ignorance" one if their disbelief in the supernatural results in them harming or inconveniencing a supernatural entity. Even if it doesn't, though, a character may be portrayed as TheBore or a stick-in-the-mud for not believing in a supernatural thing, person, or creature that turns out to actually exist. While these characters are always factually wrong, they're often portrayed as morally wrong or having the wrong attitude as well. This can be particularly annoying to audiences if the thing really ''was'' unlikely to exist within the show's universe. Commonly seen in a SavingChristmas plot involving Santa.
[[/folder]]
[[/folder]]
to:
* '''Characters are played as immoral for disbelieving in the supernatural''': This can overlap with the "ignorance" one if their disbelief in the supernatural results in them harming or inconveniencing a supernatural entity. Even if it doesn't, though, a character may be portrayed as TheBore or a stick-in-the-mud for not believing in a supernatural thing, person, or creature that turns out to actually exist. While these characters are always factually wrong, they're often portrayed as morally wrong or having the wrong attitude as well. This can be particularly annoying to audiences if the thing really ''was'' unlikely to exist within the show's universe. Commonly seen in a SavingChristmas plot involving Santa.
[[/folder]]Santa.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
a. No sense using folders when there's only one b.) Informed Wrongness is about whether something is presented as wrong in the context of the story
Added line(s) 5 (click to see context) :
!!Common Reasons for Informed Wrongness:
Deleted line(s) 5 (click to see context) :
* '''The thing is portrayed as wrong for having bad consequences that rely on something which doesn't exist or can't happen in real life''': For instance, Alice building her office building is portrayed as wrong by the story because fairies were on the land that she wanted to use. See SpaceWhaleAesop.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4,5 (click to see context) from:
* '''We're never shown why the thing being promoted as bad is indeed bad.''': For instance, a DrugsAreBad story in which no downsides to taking drugs are shown onscreen. This may overlap with CluelessAesop, since it's common in kids' stories where the authors think showing the negative consequences of something would be too scary for kids.
* '''The thing is portrayed as wrong for having bad consequences that rely on something which doesn't exist or can't happen in real life.''': For instance, Alice building her office building is portrayed as wrong by the story because fairies were on the land that she wanted to use. See SpaceWhaleAesop.
* '''The thing is portrayed as wrong for having bad consequences that rely on something which doesn't exist or can't happen in real life.''': For instance, Alice building her office building is portrayed as wrong by the story because fairies were on the land that she wanted to use. See SpaceWhaleAesop.
to:
* '''We're never shown why the thing being promoted as bad is indeed bad.''': bad''': For instance, a DrugsAreBad story in which no downsides to taking drugs are shown onscreen. This may overlap with CluelessAesop, since it's common in kids' stories where the authors think showing the negative consequences of something would be too scary for kids.
* '''The thing is portrayed as wrong for having bad consequences that rely on something which doesn't exist or can't happen in reallife.''': life''': For instance, Alice building her office building is portrayed as wrong by the story because fairies were on the land that she wanted to use. See SpaceWhaleAesop.
* '''The thing is portrayed as wrong for having bad consequences that rely on something which doesn't exist or can't happen in real
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Common Reasons for Informed Wrongness]]
* '''A character had valid points, but presented them in an arrogant, grumpy, or pessimistic way, and so is treated by the narrative as nothing but a pain in the butt.''' For a hypothetical example, there could be a show where the main characters are scientists, but they don't follow safety standards. Along comes Alice, and she wants everyone to follow safety standards more often, frequently saying things like "Don't you idiots know...?". While she could have been politer, Alice had a point about safety being important, yet due to her negativity, we're supposed to see her as a {{Jerkass}} with nothing valid to say. See TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong.
* '''A character is right this time, but was wrong plenty of other times.''' Basically, when the allegedly wrong character resembles the proverbial stopped clock-- right twice a day. This could work with both intelligence or knowledge (a character is [[TheDitz an idiot]] or [[BookDumb woefully uneducated]] but this time they're holding the SmartBall) and morality (a character is a villain, but they do have a point about the initial problem). For the first type, Alice may be a dyed-in-the-wool ditz, but when she suggests that Bob is being too rude to Charlie, [[DumbassHasAPoint her claims have merit]]. For the second type, perhaps Bob wants to get rid of shoplifters by killing them. While it's definitely wrong to [[DisproportionateRetribution kill shoplifters]], the narrative paints ''any'' kind of solution for dealing with shoplifters as wrong, just because Bob's one was too extreme.
* '''We're never shown why the thing being promoted as bad is indeed bad.''': For instance, a DrugsAreBad story in which no downsides to taking drugs are shown onscreen. This may overlap with CluelessAesop, since it's common in kids' stories where the authors think showing the negative consequences of something would be too scary for kids.
* '''The thing is portrayed as wrong for having bad consequences that rely on something which doesn't exist or can't happen in real life.''': For instance, Alice building her office building is portrayed as wrong by the story because fairies were on the land that she wanted to use. See SpaceWhaleAesop.
* '''A character is portrayed as immoral, when they behaved out of ignorance''': This is seen commonly in stories involving LivingToys. Characters who "mistreat" their own toys are seen as heartless jerks, but they didn't know the toys were sentient and thus it's likened to animal cruelty, when the person believed it was more akin to playing rough with an inanimate object.
* '''Characters are played as immoral for disbelieving in the supernatural''': This can overlap with the "ignorance" one if their disbelief in the supernatural results in them harming or inconveniencing a supernatural entity. Even if it doesn't, though, a character may be portrayed as TheBore or a stick-in-the-mud for not believing in a supernatural thing, person, or creature that turns out to actually exist. While these characters are always factually wrong, they're often portrayed as morally wrong or having the wrong attitude as well. This can be particularly annoying to audiences if the thing really ''was'' unlikely to exist within the show's universe. Commonly seen in a SavingChristmas plot involving Santa.
[[/folder]]
* '''A character had valid points, but presented them in an arrogant, grumpy, or pessimistic way, and so is treated by the narrative as nothing but a pain in the butt.''' For a hypothetical example, there could be a show where the main characters are scientists, but they don't follow safety standards. Along comes Alice, and she wants everyone to follow safety standards more often, frequently saying things like "Don't you idiots know...?". While she could have been politer, Alice had a point about safety being important, yet due to her negativity, we're supposed to see her as a {{Jerkass}} with nothing valid to say. See TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong.
* '''A character is right this time, but was wrong plenty of other times.''' Basically, when the allegedly wrong character resembles the proverbial stopped clock-- right twice a day. This could work with both intelligence or knowledge (a character is [[TheDitz an idiot]] or [[BookDumb woefully uneducated]] but this time they're holding the SmartBall) and morality (a character is a villain, but they do have a point about the initial problem). For the first type, Alice may be a dyed-in-the-wool ditz, but when she suggests that Bob is being too rude to Charlie, [[DumbassHasAPoint her claims have merit]]. For the second type, perhaps Bob wants to get rid of shoplifters by killing them. While it's definitely wrong to [[DisproportionateRetribution kill shoplifters]], the narrative paints ''any'' kind of solution for dealing with shoplifters as wrong, just because Bob's one was too extreme.
* '''We're never shown why the thing being promoted as bad is indeed bad.''': For instance, a DrugsAreBad story in which no downsides to taking drugs are shown onscreen. This may overlap with CluelessAesop, since it's common in kids' stories where the authors think showing the negative consequences of something would be too scary for kids.
* '''The thing is portrayed as wrong for having bad consequences that rely on something which doesn't exist or can't happen in real life.''': For instance, Alice building her office building is portrayed as wrong by the story because fairies were on the land that she wanted to use. See SpaceWhaleAesop.
* '''A character is portrayed as immoral, when they behaved out of ignorance''': This is seen commonly in stories involving LivingToys. Characters who "mistreat" their own toys are seen as heartless jerks, but they didn't know the toys were sentient and thus it's likened to animal cruelty, when the person believed it was more akin to playing rough with an inanimate object.
* '''Characters are played as immoral for disbelieving in the supernatural''': This can overlap with the "ignorance" one if their disbelief in the supernatural results in them harming or inconveniencing a supernatural entity. Even if it doesn't, though, a character may be portrayed as TheBore or a stick-in-the-mud for not believing in a supernatural thing, person, or creature that turns out to actually exist. While these characters are always factually wrong, they're often portrayed as morally wrong or having the wrong attitude as well. This can be particularly annoying to audiences if the thing really ''was'' unlikely to exist within the show's universe. Commonly seen in a SavingChristmas plot involving Santa.
[[/folder]]
