It doesn’t even have to be that the message is bad or completely objective and propaganda fuelled, it could just be its often incredibly recited, copied and pasted or just a blatantly obvious good lesson that you are completely aware of.

  • hraegsvelmir@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Any kind, empathetic character in a book sacrifices themselves to help others? “Oh, that character is an allegory for Christ, that’s why they acted that way.” I used to hear this all the time in English classes from middle school on, and eventually it got annoying enough that I wound up sitting down and reading the whole damn bible, just so that I could ask “In what way are this character’s actions better explained by them representing Jesus than by the fact that they’ve been an empathetic, kind character who looks out for others for the whole book?” and actually be able to call out teachers that were just using it lazily.

    Yes, there are plenty such allegories out there in books, but it got to the point where it seemed like some sort of thought terminating cliché for literary analysis in middle school and high school.

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The amount of references to Christianity in random pieces of media makes me want to crash out God damn America cult

    • FluidBeef@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Christ is already a fucking allegory! Maybe there can be people who are just nice.

  • pixeldaemon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I don’t (at least, I try not to) consume media with typical “morals of the story” and narratives. But looking back into my childhood, I hate the stories about solving conflicts diplomatically, in a nonviolent way. I wish I had someone to teach me stand up for myself with my fists. I really lacked the skill of giving one a good smack when needed, and still do. Because in real life nobody listens to what you say, unless you can back your words with something sensable.

  • ImUsuallyMoreClever@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I’m tired of seeing the telling of “the scorpion and the frog” fable ham fisted into so many stories. I don’t think I ever heard that one growing up, yet I’ve heard it a dozen times in shows.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Basically any moral plugged into hallmark movie channel or similarly designed crap. Things rarely “just”work out, and certainly never because of love, god, or good vibes.

  • Kyle@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 hours ago

    “This character is a freak, let’s make fun of them for being different, even run them out of town.” Character saves their lives, usually using the thing that makes them different “Hey everyone, this character is the best, we love them!”

    Acceptable theoretical moral: Love everyone. Actual implied moral: Love everyone because you’ll never know when they might be useful to you.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      The original Frozen was a nice twist on that, where it wasn’t romantic love that saved the day, but familial love.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Interstellar and Arrival, great films ruined by this lazy pathetic trope.

      except it’s not the day, it’s the entirety of space-time.

      God how much better they would have been had they had like a cool science solution to the plot, but they’d have never made any money without the hackneyed ‘love saves the universe’ shit endings they had.

  • arctanthrope@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 day ago

    when the “villain” is objectively correct, pointing out the failure of the establishment and that change is necessary, and then also skins puppies alive for no reason, and then the points they bring up are never addressed again

    • [deleted]@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      The most interesting villains are objectively correct in their reason for acting but their methods are monstrous because they lost perspective.

      A good example is the military antagonists in The Rock, where the military guys have decided that threatening terrorism is the only way to get benefits for vets and some of them decide to actually follow through with it. They were justifiably angry about something valid, but went too far.

      Evil just to be evil is rarely engaging.

      • FluidBeef@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Kind of like how the Suffragettes were objectively correct and had to blow men up to create change because otherwise they would simply have been written off as hysterical women.

  • QueenHawlSera@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    24 hours ago

    I hate it when they come up with something to help with someone’s disability, but it’s thrown out because the disability “is what makes them special”

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      to be fair, some in the disabled community live this way. they like refuse to accept solutions to their disabilities and see it as cultural destruction when such available solutions are embraced.

      big problem in the deaf community w/ the advent of cochlear implants and the advancement of that tech, because they see deafness as a unique and defining feature of themselves they want to pass on to their children.

  • RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    So tired of seeing revenge killing movies in Hollywood. As long as someone is truly evil and does something unforgivable in the 1st act, the “hero” is then justified in slaughtering like 100+ random people in a dark hallway in the 2nd act. I think it’s the only sort of violence we’re okay with anymore. Any other type of violence people might have a problem, but because it’s done in the name of revenge for a dead wife/dog/kidnapped daughter, that’s now been whitewashed as “good wholesome revenge killing.” Or something.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 day ago

      Is it better when the hero decides at the last minute to spare the life of the villain so they “don’t become like them” or is it worse?

      • kamenlady@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 day ago

        If the hero also spares the life of the 100+ randoms, it’s better.

        But killing them and sparing the life of the super evil villain, is much much worse.

        At least in my opinion.

        • Bongles@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          I wouldn’t mind seeing a take on it, where the 100+ are at least arguably spared and the villain is actually killed at the end, completing the revenge. At least once.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      Kind of related, the stories where the protagonist slaughters dozens of people just to get to the antagonist and then let them live because they had a change of heart.

      Like bro, you just killed 50 people to get to this guy and now you’re just gonna change your mind at the last minute?!? The proles can’t even catch a break in hero stories.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I don’t know if this is still a thing, but I feel there was a surge of media in the 90s and 00s telling us:

    If you’re not popular at school, all you have to do is cut your hair, get contacts, and buy the same expensive clothes as everyone else, THEN you’ll finally be happy.

  • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I hate when media tells us that men should always agree with their wives even when the wife is clearly wrong and irrational. And I’m a woman. If I ever get married, I want a husband who will tell me when I’m wrong. Nobody should have to just put up with their partner behaving like an irrational lunatic without saying something.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      social media largely disagrees with you and is even more crazy about this type of thing than mass media is.

      what is the most wild to me is when a professional comes on and talks about your perspective, they get mobbed and mass reported as being misogynistic.

      a lot of egotistical nutbags, man or woman, seem to think they can never be wrong any partner who would confront them is evil and hateful for doing so. or it’s a form of partner abuse. i had a couple of exes who basically told me I was abusive and hateful when I pointed out their financial problems were entirely of their own making…

      • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It’s so frustrating. A healthy relationship should consist of both partners being able to tell the other when they’re wrong. Also, it shows that in general, not just in relationships, society has a lot of people with no sense of personal accountability who think anyone who tries to hold them accountable is toxic

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          healthy things are boring. healthy food, healthy relationships, etc.

          once i had a girlfriend who i told her i was glad we were so healthy and open and i really liked her. She took that and decided it was a massive insult because she wanted us to be ‘crack cocaine’.

          And yeah, she broke up with me because I tried to get her to be a functional adult and she basically decided I was a piece of shit for expecting her to eat well, exercise, sleep, and budget.

    • Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I legitimately want to see a movie about a husband/wife couple that gets along the whole movie. It’s not that there can’t be conflict, just have it come from outside the relationship.

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Give Undercover Blues a try. Sort of a mid plot, but the acting elevates it. The main characters are a loving married couple that continues to love and respect each other throughout the movie.

  • WYLD_STALLYNS@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    They’ve got money for war, but can’t feed the poor. Best they can do is spend ten times what they would spend to feed them to torture the poor more.

    • Krusty@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean the worst thing you could do with poor people is feed them. Why would you want to perpetuate their suffering?

      Now unless you’re ALSO talking about housing them, giving them healthcare and education? Okay, let’s do it.

      Let’s not be like a guy named Dennis or Fadi on the YouTube who go out and exploit homeless for clicks and merch sales by giving them 10 star buffets y’all… maybe once a week.