Image is unnecessary and possibly triggering: Domestic Abuser

Are we putting it in Image Links?

Personally, I'd support the Homer strangling Bart picture. Yes, playing it for laughs might not be the normal way to do this trope, but if a serious image would upset people (as is evidently the case) then a serious image is not the way to go.

Although isn't that picture on Hilariously Abusive Childhood or something?

I think serious is fine. That is an overreaction. The problem was "too realistic". Abuse of any kind is a sensitive subject, and that image was right next to a help-line for victims... pretty grim irony.

Note that it's still an opinion. An image being "too scary" or "too gory" or whatever is also an opinion. But opinions held (or at least respected) by everyone or most everyone (i.e.: consensus) "count", so to speak.

I archived the image at ImageLinks.Domestic Abuser.

The issue now is what to put there. Or leave it imageless. If so, is it imageless for now, or officially imageless?

There's a big problem with that idea.

Domestic Abuser covers husband/wife to husband/wife abuse only. Parent to child abuse goes to Abusive Parents.

edited 6th Jan '12 8:20:57 PM by Servbot

Also, this trope is most certainly NOT Hilariously Abusive Childhood.

Leave as imageless.

I thought Domestic Abuser was the top-level supertrope for all these tropes? I would have expected spousal abuse specifically to be called Spousal Abuse or something.

It is. If someone abuses both wife and children it would be that trope. We just don't want images that are entirely contained by a subtrope.

Imageless seems best for now, but I would prefer that we don't set it in stone. I doubt it will happen, but a surprisingly effective image will be most welcome.

Come to think of it, that has been a rule for quite a long time now, is it in the official, written guidelines?

I would think it would be even more insensitive to use an example of domestic abuse being played for laughs. We shouldn't diminish the seriousness of it, at least not on a page that isn't about when this is played for laughs.

I say we may as well leave this imageless.

edited 6th Jan '12 8:47:34 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

Nope. Check the description. It's only about abuse between partners. It even states to go to Abusive Parents for parent to child abuse (instead of calling that one a Sub-Trope).

edited 6th Jan '12 9:21:09 PM by Servbot

At the risk of sounding like a gigantic bitch (not that it would be the first time), but I really agree with Kaiser's statement.

It's not even the issue of whether or not the trope should have an image. It's been there for ages and nobody complained. But now, just because ONE person has a problem with an image is no valid reason to pull it. Really. If that's the case, I could as well go onto any violence trope and say that I am traumatized by what I see, even if it's fictional, and request to pull it because it hurts the feelings of my oh-so-sensitive little self.

No really, are we going to pull this image at the request of ONE person? If that's the case, fine by me. But the original statement above stands for itself all the same.

EDIT: Eh, nevermind, Madrugada's response is way better than this one.

edited 29th Jan '12 12:30:37 PM by GingerSnaps

Alrune We didn't pull this page image because "one person asked". We pulled it because one person asked, they gave reasons to support their request, and a number of other people agreed that the reasons were valid and strong enough to be acted on.

There's a bit of a difference there.

edited 29th Jan '12 12:25:08 PM by Madrugada

Or, to put it another way, we didn't pull it because one person asked - we pulled it because one person asked, and a bunch of people thought that one person asking was good enough reason to pull it.

Not that I really care, since the image wasn't great to start with. I know it's slightly JAFAC, but what about something like this?◊ "One of these days, Alice. OOOONE OF THESE DAYS."

That type of scene would work — can we find one where he's got his hand curled into a fist rather than simply pointing?

Maybe this one◊?

Or this one◊? (really low quality — I suspect it's a photo of tv screen rather than a frame from the actual film.)

edited 29th Jan '12 1:24:16 PM by Madrugada

No, Honey Mooners is not an example. There was never any actual abuse going on. He threats were always played for comedy and were never followed up on, and there is no indication that she ever seriously felt threatened or was in anyway scared or hurt. The line was also almost always accompanied by a laugh track.

This isn't a trope about that sort of thing.

edited 29th Jan '12 1:28:32 PM by Catbert

I don't see how any of that matters. The subtext of that running gag was domestic abuse, even if it was played for laughs, and even if it never really happened. The picture doesn't always need to be an example of the trope; it just needs to show the trope somehow.

I like that first pic, Madrugada. It's obvious at a glance what the implication is, and yet it isn't offensive in the slightest.

edited 29th Jan '12 1:39:14 PM by abk0100

I like the first one as well.

The only link on the trope page itself was to this Superman comic (bottom left comic). I don't know if that's too much.

I did find a Cyanide And Happiness comic on the subject... but that's not helpful.

Part of that comic is already the image for Wife-Basher Basher.

The more you learn. I'll add that onto the example. Though having separate parts of the same comic as two different tropes images isn't a bad thing - just saying.

I have to ask: if "this image will probably horrify people, and should not be used because it's right at the top of the page" is a good reason, despite the fact the page is called Domestic Abuser, and it would be clear such a page would contain an image like that, why do we not have similar criteria across the board? Namely, High Octane Nightmare Fuel.

Don't get me wrong—I believe TV Tropes is here to inform. Images should not repulse our audience away. If the image is unpleasant enough to do that, to prevent people from looking at the page, I think that's a good reason to pull. It's just that we have definite examples of definitely horrifying things being pictured on the wiki. I will admit I do not visit any HONF pages because I just don't like being scared by TV Tropes. That's not what I came here for, and I steer clear of them. So I understand the reasoning for pulling here. But why is not applied across the board?

I think we do in fact apply the same criteria. Take the Image Links for HONF compared to its page image; there are things on IL way scarier than the Terminator-skull-in-flames. The page image is deliberately not literally nightmare-inducing even if that might be more appropriate.

Also "horrifying" was not at all the reason this thread was started or that image was pulled. It was a realistic depiction of domestic abuse. A realistic depiction of rape (without any graphic bits) would be bad too, for precisely the same reason, wouldn't it?

edited 29th Jan '12 5:39:37 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Horror: An intense feeling of fear, shock, or disgust

It does sound like this IP was started because it horrified people.

But that said, I do remember IPs about HONFs were the image was deliberately not pulled because it was good that it was scary. I'm talking mostly about the subpages, not the main page itself. If it's held as an across-the-board thing, I wouldn't know (that said, it was two years ago).

edited 29th Jan '12 6:15:17 PM by helterskelter

I vote imageless.