Description is a rant.: All Gays Are Pedophiles

Yeah, I think that this trope is dumb, but can we re write this to not be so negative?

It doesn't seem very rant-y to me. The trope is all about Unfortunate Implications, and it describes them in a fairly dry, yet backhandedly humorous fashion. It's only two paragraphs long, after all...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I'm not seeing a rant, either. I did take out the last sentence, which really isn't germane to the trope, but we do make note on other tropes that are not Truth in Television.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I took a look and saw nothing wrong, it's just fine.

The Blog The Art

How is that not bitchy? Also, why do we really need more then two lines? This is a really simple trope after all.

edited 15th Aug '11 9:44:00 AM by nuclearneo577

I don't see why that's an issue.

The Blog The Art

It's true: it's an Unfortunate Implications trope that is not a Dead Horse Trope, yet. If that sentence was extended on a multi-paragraph explosion, then yeah, but it's perfectly fine as it is.

edited 15th Aug '11 9:45:15 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

A rant? Nah. Bitchy? Sure, but certain concepts are inappropriate to validate by treating them as if they was reasonable.

It is a fact that homosexuals in general are not pedophiles. A well proven fact. Pointing out this fact is not a bad thing. Hiding the fact in order to make it look as if homophobia wasn't a prejudice would indeed be polite to homophobia, but that's a kind of politeness that is highly ethically questionable. A vice, not a virtue.

No, facts don't matter to tropes. It might be worthy of a note, but the wiki isn't here to spread facts, that's The Other Wiki, not this one.

Fight smart, not fair.

I'm really not seeing the issue here either. Could it be just your bias from not liking the trope? Not accusing or anything, just asking.

Why would not liking the trope bias him towards viewing it as too ranty? I don't follow that.

On-topic, I have to agree with those who said they aren't seeing any problems here.

Also seems fine to me. Might be a tad short.

"You want to see how a human dies? At ramming speed." - Emily Wong.

I don't see a problem either. Snarky: yes, rant: no.

nthing the "what problem" side.

Nous restons ici.

I could chop out the parts that look like a problem on a sandbox if anyone wants to see.

Fight smart, not fair.

Go for it, Boss. I'd be interested in seeing what others consider iffy in there, cuz I honestly dont see anything. *shrug*

Sandbox.All Gays Are Pedophiles is pretty much a chop job, which is how I do most repairing. I tended to go for things that gave a "we don't like this trope" vibe. And the stuff about real life, which isn't particularly interesting*

relevant.

edited 16th Aug '11 12:25:16 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

The existing version is just better.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

Arguable that the stuff about real life is not relevant; if it is inherent in a trope that it shows a lack of research on the subject (and this one does), some sort of note of that should be made.

Nous restons ici.

The existing version is WAY better.

Also, it's simply not true that fiction doesn't have any relationship whatsoever to reality. If a trope is discredited and commonly considered to have massive unfortunate implications, it does affect how the trope is played, when it is played, why it is played, how it is received, and so on.

Also also, there is no such thing as neutrality on these issues. We can chose what position we take, and how strongly. But if we pretend that we're not taking a position, we're only deceiving ourselves. Your version make a very clear statement that "all gays are pedophiles" is not a prejudice´. Instead, it is a valid statement that we should all respect. Who are we to say that non-pedophilic homosexuals might actually exist? We are not the other wiki, blah blah blah.

I don't think you have such prejudice against homosexuals. What I do believe is that you have a delusion of neutrality...

YES! Thank you! That's a trope I have been wanting to start for SO long, but didn't have a title for until now. I'll get right on that.

I don't believe I have a delusion of neutrality, I believe I was cutting out the parts that said "we don't like this trope". I have a dislike of "how the trope is viewed" and "accuracy" and "unfortunate implications" because I believe they attract bad things to the article. The first two attract arguments and analysis in the main page, and the third attracts bashing.

Where did you get

from? I don't see how repeating how it's inaccurate over and over again is any different than any of the dozen Hollywood X tropes that have had to get a clean up because the description was focused on how it was wrong instead of what the trope was.

edited 16th Aug '11 3:51:29 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

I do understand your dislikes, and in general I do share them. However, balance is also needed. You are fixing something that isn't broken, and thus go too far in the other direction.

The statement in the existing description is not "we don't like this trope being played in media". It is "This is not reality, mkey.".

Your version doesn't come across to me as "we don't care if this trope is played in media or not", more like "we don't want to offend the Chick Tracts fanbase by insinuating that this trope might not be This Is Reality". Especially since your version remove information relevant to when, how and why the trope is being played.

Actually, I think you are removing a part of the trope itself. The cultural, social and political framework is an integral part of the trope as such. Making it sound as if it was an idea that comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere... That's a bad idea on so many levels!

Took another try. Only deleted two lines and moved the opening line further back. Shouldn't talk about a trope until you've defined it, ne? Headaches make me chop happy.

Fight smart, not fair.

The original is fine.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

Okay then. Lock'er up.

Fight smart, not fair.