Trope Workshop talk:Counterproductive Propaganda

This trope should be killed off. Fearing your enemy too little is bad for your side, but fearing your enemy too much is also bad for your side. It does not follow that propaganda which portrays the enemy as weak must be counterproductive. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2014 (BST)
 * Not entirely sure I agree on that one. Propoganda that encourages your own forces to be so overconfident they get themselves killed because they underestimate their enemies too much does sound plausible. For instance, in the American Civil War, both sides played up the fact the Civil War would be over very soon because the other side would fold like a house of cards during actual bloodshed, and the first real battle would result in the other side suing for peace due to how pathetic they were. This illusion was shattered for both sides during the first battle of Bull Run/Manassas (the Union and the Confederacy both learned it wouldn't be as effortless as they thought to curbstomp the other side), and while both sides still utilized propaganda to drum up support against the enemy, it was somewhat less counterproductive than the initial "the other side is utterly pathetic" crap they were saying at the beginning. Geth N7 - Legion p 7020.png 11:46, 15 June 2014 (BST)
 * Propaganda which portrays the enemy as weak *can* be counterproductive, but it isn't *necessarily* counterproductive. It can go too far in either direction.  In that Civil War example, the weakness was played up too much.  But that doesn't mean that every single piece of propaganda which portrays the enemy as weak, automatically does it too much.
 * Also, it's not a good idea to have a trope which needs real life examples just to fill it out to the minimum number of examples. And this should have "no real life examples" anyway, or at least no modern real life examples, as otherwise people will just pick whatever modern war they're politically opposed to and add a complaint about the propaganda of the side they don't like. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2014 (BST)


 * This obviously can go both ways (an enemy painted too monstrous becomes too scary). But in the current form, it's both dubious as a concept and too specific, IMO. Could be expanded to more generic, e.g. "Propaganda Backfire" - which would require that:


 * 1) Someone bothered to spread a notion.
 * 2) It was believed.
 * 3) It ends up biting its author(s) in the butt one way or another.
 * This would be meaningful, reasonably widespread and easily defined (not nebulous), May overlap with Believing Their Own Lies, of course.


 * Arromdee - Good point. Not sure where the line would be drawn on what would be considered modern day examples though. TBeholder - That probably would be better than the trope in its current form. Geth N7 - Legion p 7020.png 19:58, 15 June 2014 (BST)
 * So should I discard it until I come up with more examples (that match TBeholder's requirements this time)? I think the last requirement should be broadened to it hurts its authors and/or its author's side (or if that is what he maybe make that more clear).--Goo Monster (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (BST)