troperville

tools

toys


main index

Narrative

Genre

Media

Topical Tropes

Other Categories

TV Tropes Org
random
Kickstarter Message
TV Tropes Needs Your Help
X
Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
View Kickstarter Project
Headscratchers: Multiple Forms Of Media
  • On the Trope Namer for Squick (Head-Tiltingly Kinky, pun definitely intended), bone is kind of porous, and there's probably also a lot of tiny shards from the drill or saw, so wouldn't the squick initiator be causing a lot of probably irreversible damage to himself?
    • Yes. Anyone performing this particular act must be a masochist as well as a sadist. And unlike with most other sex toys, you really can't go to the hospital and have them assist with removal without a lot of explaining to do. Perhaps it's a wilful thing, like a murder-suicide?
    • O.K., this troper has no idea what's this about, as he couldn't find the trope namer anywhere. What is it?
    • Supposedly it's the sound effect of cutting a hole in a skull and sticking male genitals in and out of the hole, provided there are still brains in the skull to make the noise. I question where the information was obtained—did Jeffrey Dahmer get inventive or something?
      • ...fucking ew...
  • This troper is pissed off with post-apocalyptic stories. Not the concept of a world left after a disaster, but the terminology. Apocalypse means the end of earth, or all life on it, or even the entire universe. A world left after an actual apocalypse would be completely barren, if there are humans left wandering the world, it's not an apocalypse. It's a damn big war, it's a messed up place, but if humanity survives it, it's not an apocalypse.
    • What would you call it instead? Post-disaster doesn't sound big enough, and I really can't think of anything else.
    • If the phrase takes the form "post-X", then there doesn't seem to be an English word for X that specifically means "catastrophe that killed almost everyone in the world." But that doesn't mean there's no solution! The solution is to substitute X not with the terrible event, but with the thing the event erased from the world: A post-civilization story. Ta-da!
      • I think it's simply that 'post-civilization', while perhaps a bit more accurate, makes it sound a bit dry and dull, whereas 'post-apocalyptic' sounds big and epic and massive. And even if it's not a literal apocalypse then surely a little over-exaggeration can be forgiven when describing something that only wiped out 99% of the earth instead of 100% of it.
    • Fun fact: "Apocalypse" was comes from Greek words relating to revelations of stuff; the Revelation of John, describing the Second Coming of Jesus, was hence also called the Apocalypse of John, From this, the word later came to mean "end times". In another universe, you could say "I've just had an apocalypse that the Colts will win this game."
  • This doesn't quite fitin the It Just Bugs Me! Web Original section, so here is probably best for it. I'm bugged by Web sites whose page titles (that's the text usually found at the top of your browser window) are long descriptions of the site itself. Netflix, for example, currently has the page title "Netflix - Unlimited TV Shows Online & Movies Online, plus DVDs". It's like you're not confident in the ability of users to figure out and later remember what it is you do (or your ability to get it across on your home page)! Plus, it creates eyeball-litter when viewed in a history or bookmarks list. Arg.
    • My guess is that it stems from an old web designer mentality of trying to stick in as many keywords as possible everywhere in the web code used to create your website, so the spiders used by old-style search engines to crawl through the WWW could be more attracted to your website and it would have a high placement when the applicable keyword(s) are typed into said search engines by a user trying to find applicable websites. It's the kind of mentality that should go with the dinosaurs, however, because in this era of Google this is no longer an effective way of securing a high search engine placement (instead, being linked to a lot is the most important/effective thing to do).
  • You think it's annoying in your bookmark's list? Try citing it in an essay.
  • I had no idea where else to put this, but one thing that bugs me about the depiction of male-to-female transgender individuals in the media is that they are always either a sexy dominatrix who can pass for being born a woman or a hideously obvious former man who dresses like a color-blind old matron. Granted, I grew up in a very conservative Texas town and I haven't had any real experience with transgender people, but I doubt very seriously that they all fall neatly into one of those two categories.
    • It depends on the person really some people look like they went into the uncanny valley and never came out but there are some who look like they could pass for a woman. In answer both are hefty exaggerations.
  • This seems to be the most appropriate category to bring it up: Redundant censorship bleeping. 95% of the time it seems that only the vowels in swear words are bleeped. But anyone with basic hearing ability can still understand what the word is. For example, bleeping the 'i' in sh*t doesn't do anything to hide what the word is. And that's without commenting on the stupidity of censoring 'hole' in the word 'asshole' ...
    • Ass is an acceptable word, asshole is not.
    • The way I figure it, it's a compromise between people who want no editing, people who want no cursing, and people who want to limit both as much as possible. If you obscure what the word actually is, then it won't be obvious except to people who already know the word. Anyway, sh*t may not be a good example, since "shot" (as in bird- or buck-) can be used in place of the (sans-modifier) curse 90% of the time, albeit with the result being an odd manner of speaking.
  • Why do networks rerun their shows, animated and live-action alike, in random order? More and more channels are doing this now, if not most American ones. Considering they still have to choose episodes, if only to report to channel guides, what do they have to gain from it? Is it an indirect way of preventing Continuity Lockout by making sure their writers need to make sure the shows can be seen in any order?

Monster HighHeadscratchers/OtherPinball

random
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy
7802
3