Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Working Title: Everybody Hates Mimes: From YKTTW

Indefatigable: I have a problem with transsexuals being on the list of "lifestyle choices", among furries and goths and students and the childfree (none of which I have a problem with, but they are choices). Transvestitism or crossdressing is something that people do because it's fun and a kink. Scientific evidence points towards transsexuality being a neurological issue, where the brain is wired for one gender and the body has the naughty bits of the other gender. It's easier to change the body than to change the brain, hence sex-reassignment surgery.

Sciatrix: Asexuality falls under the same category, too. Do we have a better category for those? Ethnic, maybe? It's been so bastardized that orientations might fit fine. (I kind of think Nationality should take on actual ethnic stereotypes and Ethnic should be renamed, by the way.)
Glooble: Deleted a repetitive entry, since obesity is already covered elsewhere in Acceptable Targets.

The Nifty: A lot of these examples are kinda whiny in a "my particular subgroup is sooo persecuted!" way. Some trimming may be necessary.

Um...does anyone else feel the entries on drug dealers and users are a bit judgemental and thus hypocritical?
  • I don't do drugs, so why would it be hypocritical?
  • Do you mean the examples themselves or the people who added them? Because I don't remember being a hypocrite about drugs, I do remember adding an entry about a 60's movies that claimed weed can defy the laws of physics(that was the funniest movie I ever watched and it was meant to be dramatic too).

I don't entirely like the serious use of the term "feminazi" under Women in the Sex Industry.

Trouser Wearing Barbarian: I went ahead and edited it out, along with the term Straw Feminist. There seems to be a bad habit on this wiki of tropers calling any feminist that they're criticizing a "Straw Feminist" to avoid causing any offence. The whole thing is a huge No True Scotsman (No True Scotswomyn?) fallacy - dumbass/extremist/hypocritical feminists are still feminists just like how Jack Chick is still a Christian. Acknowledging this doesn't mean that all (or even most) feminists or Christians are like these idiots.
Kilyle: Can we get these categories moved around so they make some sense comparing nearby entries? Either on this page or as sub-pages. Put the family-relations ones in one place, the sex-related ones in another place, the work-related (and studies-related) ones in a third, and the rest someplace else. I think it would make this page a lot more useful.

Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Yeah, I was just about to suggest an Acceptable Sexual Targets page.

Elitist B 616: Deleted the comment about people laughing at furries simply because they find fucking Bugs Bunny amusing. Even furries find that topic funny, but it doesn't serve any particular relevance in this article.
Malchus: Removed the following bullet point since it doesn't really fit. Also, I'd like to reply to the misconception about natural selection presented in it.

  • Technically speaking, depending of how you interpret "going against" it does. An asexual person won't reproduce and therefore won't pass forward his or her genes. That said, being is so is not necessarily bad. For example, extending even less than the asexuality, health care could be considered "against evolution" for stopping natural selection by not let people who would otherwise die, effectively die. And anyone who is absolutely against health care should be locked up in a white room.

Technically speaking, that's an oversimplification of natural selection. Part of natural selection is how the actions of the organisms in said environment also contribute to conditions in said environment, which then affect the selection process in the environment. Health care is just another factor in the many factors of natural selection in the modern human environment since health care is the action of an influential organism in said environment, i.e., humans. What many forget is that humans are themselves part of nature, thus everything they have done throughout human history is "natural" even though other creatures are incapable of shaping their environment to the extent to which we can. Evolution and natural selection are vastly more complex than what most people think they know about it.

Noimporta: moved the following text to a new trope, Acceptable Professional Targets, I removed all the examples and natter while moving, so some information might have been lost. Warning, huge walls of text:

    removed text 

CA Lieber: Question about this, rather than removing it outright:

  • Nice Guys. Okay, they're able to get along with anyone, have many friends, are easy to talk too and pretty funny, but on the downside they're going to be portrayed as slightly reserved, never happy with themselves, have Jocks and assholes think they're easy targets and will generally be shown to be useless when chatting up women, and the woman will go for the Bad Boy anyway. Maybe the Dogged Nice Guy will get her in the end. Can be trapped in a weird subcultural purgatory of being too cool to be a nerd but not cool enough to be with the Popular clique - see the British TV show The Inbetweeners for more on this.

Really? I've never, ever seen this, and one instance does not a trope make. If you mean the sort of Manipulative Bastard Jerk Ass who calls himself a nice guy, thus, I'll grant that, but then we may as well add Villains as an acceptable target.
Won Sab: Asking about this, since theoretically either one of the Large families examples could stand as the base and I don't know in which of the two to consolidate the examples. As to the Emos it has an extended section already. One has to wonder if they were paying attention. Removed the second bit on Emos because it really doesn't serve any purpose.

Both Emos and Large families are mentioned twice; the former as its own extended entry and as a one-line add-on to the Goths section, the latter as its own extended section and as a much shorter section with longer examples underneath the section on The childfree. This strikes me as people not reading what's already up. It's a tad repetitive.

Kersey475: Are racists Acceptable Targets?