Don't Shoot the Message: Difference between revisions
A bit hypocritical to have a Daniel Dennett quote there imo, since he's someone who built a career around shooting the message. That and Morty's way of saying it is more light-hearted.
m (Mass update links) |
NormAtredies (talk | contribs) (A bit hypocritical to have a Daniel Dennett quote there imo, since he's someone who built a career around shooting the message. That and Morty's way of saying it is more light-hearted.) |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{quote|''"
You partake in a piece of media. Frankly, you find it to be just terrible. The [[Dull Surprise|acting is wooden]], the plot is boring and unrealistic, [[Special Effects Failure|the effects are cheap]], the soundtrack is annoying, and the costumes are ugly.
Worse yet is the [[Aesop]] the show attempts to give: The logic of its arguments is faulty, its world-view is unnuanced, the characters frequently [[Author Filibuster|burst into boring monologues concerning what are almost certainly the author's opinions on the subject]], those who disagree with the opinion are [[Writer
And the worst part? ''You actually '''agree''' with what the work is trying to say''.
Related to the concept of the [[Clueless Aesop]], '''Don't Shoot
Such a position should not be seen as particularly incongruous, but it is often assumed that those who dislike a work ''necessarily'' disagree with its point of view. Many times, it is indeed the case: If an unpalatable bias is detected in a work, people will steer clear of it. However, the ''a priori'' assumption that this is the case is most certainly an invocation of [[You Fail Logic Forever]] - for instance, hating a corny anti-drug PSA does not mean that one is a heroin addict.
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]] and liberals who dislike [[Michael Moore]]. There are fundamentalist Christians who can't stand the ''[[Left Behind]]'' series or ''[[Chick Tracts]],'' and atheists who don't like having [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Bill Maher]] as spokesmen. There is, of course, nothing objectively wrong with liking any of these things (yes... [[Strawman Political|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 [[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 ''[[The Da Vinci Code]]''.
One possible form this could take is a [[Space Whale Aesop]]. Contrast this with [[Straw Man Has a Point]], 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).
Line 18:
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Audience Reactions]]
[[Category:
[[Category:
|