(which ironically still considers hentai
games to be perfectly safe for sale)
This... isn't actually ironic. Sex != violence.
- This troper is an employee of Gamestop/EB Games, where despite it not actually being a law, we are not allowed to sell M rated games to people without [i]legal, state issued identification[/i]. This troper finds peoples reactions to being carded for videogames from laughter to anger and everything in between.
I don't really see how this fits under here. `.`
- Ironically, some fans of violent media say that it's the responsibility of parents to control what their kids watch, read or play, rather than passing laws to ban and censor such games, movies, comics or music. What's ironic about this is that the fans are actually encouraging parents to be Moral Guardians, at least in the sense that they can and should dictate what their own children can watch, rather than trying to impose blanket censorship.
: Wow, telling parents to raise their children. Th irony is simply too much to bear...
: In the entry's defense, unless I'm missing something crucial in the definition of "moral guardian", that's... completely accurate.
: I don't like PETA any more than most sane people, but how are they Moral Guardians
? I thought this trope was for people/groups who protest media and try to get it changed. Has PETA done that, and if so can we get an example?
: Agreed; they don't fit in this trope at all — not to mention that it's degenerated into an orgy of natter
. Yanking the whole thing:
- PETA has devolved into one of these, and seems to be practically begging for everyone to turn vegetarian.
- This trooper would argue that PETA was always an extremist group that bordered on blatant terrorism. Their support of other extremists who burn down buildings or bludgeon doctors and/or researchers to death for harming animals is reprehensible. Despite what they like to think Pamela Anderson does not give them the moral high ground
- They're not helping their case with their constant dives into sheer absurdity. There are legitimate points in favor of vegetarianism (they're debatable, but hey, debates are fun and you don't debate something that's patently false); when the same group telling you about them then goes on to equate owning a pet with owning a slave, those points suddenly start looking a lot less legit.
- Especially when you consider the alternative, throwing them outside to starve, though PETA may just expect you to give them your house.
- Or give them to PETA, who will then promptly euthanize them and use their bodies as protest signs.
- Let's not for get that a slave is someone you force to do work without caring much for them, while a pet is an animal you have to work to take care of. The two terms are practically antonyms.
- Furthermore, almost anyone who has ever had and cared for a pet will tell you how quickly they become a loved and cherished member of the family, which is fundamentally at odds with the idea of a 'slave' being a disregarded item of property.
- Comparing owning a pet to slave-owning is an astonishing bit of racism that could only be made by people ignorant of world history.
- Not to mention PETA expects animals to become vegetarians. Any carnivores they 'liberate' are expected to eat a completely meat-free diet. Virtually all of them die.
- Parodied in an episode of Futurama. An animal rights group named MEAT is giving Planet Express a hard time about shipping Popplers. When Professor Farnsworth tells them they can't expect everyone to conform to their standards, Free Waterfall III replies that in fact they can-they taught a lion to eat tofu. Pan right to Waterfall's skinny, malnourished lion. Truthin Television indeed.
- Peta's latest delusion is a push for human milk to be used in ice cream instead of cow dairy. Whether they realize that Family Guy already made the joke or not remains to be seen.
- This troper was particularly annoyed by the assertion of one high-level PETA member who insisted that, if you ate meat, you couldn't be an environmentalist. Specifically, chicken-eating Al Gore is a horrible polluter apparently.
- Given that his house uses energy disproportionately higher than it's size compared to an average house, and the polution producing methods he uses to get too "global warming" events. He is.
- While PETA's antics annoy both carnists and vegans, people who call themselves environmentalists but refuse to question their eating habits have a massive blind spot that could do with examining.
- The huge irony in PETA's vegan standards is that they would cause the deaths of millions more animals than actually eating said animals directly because if humans were hogging all the plants herbivores would starve followed by the carnivores that feed on those herbivores.
Also, this last part is so very wrong
. "Hogging all the plants"? Seriously?
- Coincidentally, this happened on this troper's 19th birthday. It makes me feel kind of bad. . .I did not get him anything for his!
- Fair enough his intentions are noble (stop kids from being stalked by pedophiles or get exposed to porn and violence) but the approach is just plain stupid, in that it won't actually stop internet predators, would fail to achieve anything, apart from effectively killing the internet in Australia.
- Plus it also takes the decision making out of the parents (and adults) hands and puts in the governments, the first signs of a nanny state or a totalitarian dictatorship forming.
The fact that he also makes an incongruous concession to liberalism by marking films down for racism (for which the biblical justification
, to say the least
) suggests that he would
rather have the aforementioned blank grey screen.
Conversation in the Main Page
- I'm surprised they didn't have a riot over Sly Cooper, an E-rated game about thieves. Maybe it's wholesomeness and the fact that the main character is a a heroic thief.
...okay, but... ``
: I think we've got a glut of quotes
here. I'm cutting it down to one.
: I read two of the Childcare Action Project's reviews (On The Simpsons Movie and The Dark Knight). My brain and sanity are now dribbling out of my skull.
Seven Of Diamonds
: The full CAP entry before I hacked it down, if you feel I cut something imperative, maybe you can add it back just don't make it three pages long again.
Seven Of Diamonds
: Don't add that entire thing back in without even an explanation
on the discussion page. Most of it's natter or explaining the joke
. His actions speak for themselves, we don't need such witty comments like "This guy is stupid, heheh." It weakens
the humor and deters people from reading it. Nobody's defending Carder, this is for the benifit of the wiki readers. If you do feel something imperitive was cut out, for example the entry about the Wolverine review, then add that piece back in but not
the entire three pages of ranting and "This Troper read the Simpsons review and it was bad" tales.
: Removed Screw the Rules, I Make Them!
from the CAP entry because there's only one example given over there, and as I'm going to put in that discussion, it seems to be a misinterpretation. As absolutely fucked up
as his rules are, he does follow them.
: I don't want to natter
this page any more than it already is, but to answer the question posed under Manhunt
: "How can a game "revel" in anything?" The same way any other medium can — glorifying it (whatever "it" is, in this case the violence and murder) and showing it off at every opportunity. Even if the protagonist and his employer are the villains in the eyes of the plot, if the violence itself is up-front-and-center, it sounds likely to lead to a similar mentality to... well... Grand Theft Auto
. To make a ham-fisted comparison (not least because I'll admit up front I haven't played or seen these myself), like Funny Games
is to gorn
, except a dozen times easier to miss the point by virtue of having all the hallmarks and beats of the "real thing".
: The laconic entry says, "Squeamish, always offended, overtly-proselytizing viewers." Something isn't adding up. Is the definition of Moral Guardian
narrower than it sounds, or does the laconic version have exaggerated stereotypes in mind?
- Laconic wiki is simplified not exaggerated so ya I think it needs to be fixed but I'd say that for the regular article too. It seems biased because if tropesarenotbad why does the real article reads with such disgust, pretentiousness and disdain? You might as well save the Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness and just write "UGH these are offended people are ruining my fun."
: ...and is the Simpsons
quote actually supposed to be emblematic of the subject matter? Do we want to start a war on straw
: I'm cutting it. Frankly, the description is slanted enough as it is.
Call me a killjoy, but I think that because this is not to my taste no one else should be able to enjoy it.
movie007: I just wanted to comment that I love how this article starts off getting straight to the point by mentioning both "conservative bible-thumpers" and "politically correct liberals", and how they're Not So Different
. I agree with that wholeheartedly!!
- Actually, copyright law did exist in Shakespeare's day (the quatros of his plays are effectively bootlegs, and several plays were nearly omitted from the first folio over rights issues). As for Bradbury's lawsuit, no, you cannot copyright a title. But, as Harlan Ellison or Universal Studios (see Universal v. Nintendo) would be happy to point out, if a work infringes on the market value or could be confused with a previous works title, then there is grounds for a lawsuit. Bradbury was not trying to censor Moore, he was trying to stop him from pushing politics he did not agree with using the publicity of his intellectual property.
for Natter and because most of it is incorrect about intellectual property (parody and Trademark vs. Copyright are the key issues). I did find it amusing that it cited a case famous for the smackdown Universal got trying to claim protection for King Kong. I think this whole article could use some natter trimming, but I don't have the time to go through it all right now.
: Alright, if this has bugged me this long I probably should have said it earlier, but anyway: Why do we have the Erich Fromm quote as the definitive quote for Moral Guardians
? It's not like "hate or envy" is uniformly the cause behind moral indignation — most people have good
intentions when they try to keep kids out of Pulp Fiction
. For that matter — never mind my gradual poking around at the description over the past several months; it used to have a lot more generalization and general viciousness — most "Moral Guardians
" types I've seen don't even claim "memberships", let alone vast ones, and Completely Missing the Point
with a completely out-of-context-quote is rarer still. It sounds like someone had a few specific bones to pick and used them to define the entire category.