Is it really possible to avoid unfortunate implications

It just seems like every little things is considered unfortunate implications. The hot girl went with the hot guy instead of the ugly guy! The villain just so happens to be a black guy! The Asian was doing a math problem!

Well, there are some things that legitimately qualify. There are quite a few examples where people read too much into things, but this is an overly analytical site by definition.

It is a decent point that this kind of thing will always be a problem with these kind of tropes, but this just smells like a complaining thread to me.

Not sure what this has to do with the wiki, as I can't remember the last time we cut something on a page due to Unfortunate Implications.

Moving to Trope Talk accordingly.

Quoting myself:

Simply put, you better don't worry. You are not going to avoid this. Not with a potential market of over five thousand million people each one with their own entitlement issues.

Thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Yes and no. There's no way to guarantee you won't offend anybody, but you can at least be aware of the implications in your work and try not to inadvertantly say anything too horrendous.

If you're lucky enough that nothing much can seriously hurt you, it's still decent to be aware that not everyone is so fortunate in that regard. And if you're a writer, then like it or not, content that hurts a substantial chunk of your audience is necessarily narrowing your readership, so it pays to think about why you're writing it.

Avoiding unfortunate implications, or avoiding to have someone accusing us of making unfortunate implications? Put in another way, is it the fact that we are subconsciously racist/sexist/ageist/etc. or the fact that people complain that causes us distress?

If it's the first, then I think it's possible, but requires alertness and a keen eye. If it's the second, practically not possible, as argued by other posters above. (If it's a bit of both, AND operator applies and the answer is again not possible.)

For myself, unless the accusation is widespread (relative to the audience), the rule is certainly: If his/her arguments make sense, then we can use the opportunity to avoid it in the future, while not feeling all that horrible because the implication is (surely?) unintentional. Otherwise, if the argument doesn't hold water, we should be perfectly happy to dismiss it as people reading too much into things.

The only problem is if a large number of people started to read too much into things, in which case the proper course of action is to bury our face in one hand while stirring a stiff drink with another.

edited 30th Dec '11 10:21:01 AM by Catalogue

Unfortunate Implications is not a state of existing, but the manner in which an individual responds to a work, hence why it is YMMV. There are going to be people who like to go Rooting for the Empire and thus may find UI with just the use of La Résistance as the good guys.

Though if you are attempting to bring up a fairly controversial subject few people are capable of examining such topics without making a misstep. I remember Roger Ebert reviewing a movie (can't remember the movie) which took a meta-look at how we view violence in media by having a happy couple be attacked in their own home by a couple of sadists. Ebert found some offense in the idea that the couple were targeted because they were carefree yuppies, feeling the movie was condemning them for it.

On the wiki I will likely delete any examples that have to explain why something is offensive based on the interpretation and not specifically on what exists in the media itself (basically like saying "We turn it sideways, magnify by a factor of three and give it a sepia color wash and we find..."). For example, The Big Bang Theory had a long list of UI that was about Sheldon having Aspergers, saying it looks badly on his friends for how little they put up with him and Sheldon himself isn't a good representative of the disorder. I deleted it because Sheldon having Aspergers at all is a fan theory, the creators have denied that he has it presumably to avoid those implications.

edited 30th Dec '11 11:49:08 AM by KJMackley

Basically if it doesn't makes sense delete it. If the entry is something like "The villain is a black guy" get rid of that.

Also, shouldn't this article have a Flame Bait banner?

I can technically think of one way to avoid Unfortunate Implications. However, it's by being out-and-out prejudiced and being direct with it.

Beyond just being an asshole, though, I don't think there's a way to avoid it completely. Particularly as it would require a level of prescience about how every person and every culture will take a particular piece. And, if you want to consider Values Dissonance as well, a level of prescience about how those from the future will take it as well.

The sad truth is, no matter what you write, some people are going to read Unfortunate Implications into it. Sometimes there's no way to avoid writing something that might come across as offensive.

For example, say the Action Girl's mentor dies. Is the mentor male? Then the action girl is an example of Never a Self-Made Woman. Is the mentor female? Then you've got a case of Stuffed into the Fridge. (And that's not even getting started on how people will take the girl's reaction - no matter how she reacts.)

There's also a reason why minorities don't show up in fiction as often as they should: you can't do anything with them without somebody complaining. Even if you avoid tokenism, somebody is going to take offense. If all the black characters are just as flawed as the white characters, then you will get accused of racism. But if you make all the black characters Mary Sues, that's Positive Discrimination.

I'm not saying go ahead and make every character a ridiculous stereotype. It is possible to reduce offense potential, but the only way to avoid it completely is to not write at all.

edited 4th Jan '12 10:58:56 AM by Xandriel

It's also not just a matter of how many people you offend but who you offend. I'd rather offend a larger number of people who were in the wrong to be offended than offend a smaller number of people who are blameless.

Business-people have to answer to market competition, though, so they can't afford such principle.

edited 4th Jan '12 2:20:23 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

To be honest, the 'you'll offend people anyway, so don't give a shit about it' argument smacks of laziness and over-defensiveness to me. Avoiding offending everyone is impossible, sure, but you can at least make the effort to keep your work from reading like Mein Kampf.

Seconded.

part of the reason why this is so hard to avoid is there are plenty of groups of people out there that really don't like another type of group, this plus/and Moral Myopia

No we can not get along.

edited 18th Jan '12 9:24:28 AM by rimpala

It's not that people are willing to write another Mein Kampf (and if they do, they know what they're in for anyway), no need for a Godwin point. It's just that caring about everything, everytime and always checking the reactions of everyone not only hampers the creative process but also potentially creates even more Unfortunate Implications.

It's not about "not giving a shit at all", it's about staying realistic about people's reactions. You can't please them all, it doesn't exist.

Two year thread necro of a dead topic. Really?