Rename (alt titles 8/29): Refuge In Vulgarity

This page needs to be improved upon. My main concern is that it seems to be partly bile. For example:

• Drawn Together sometimes falters due to this. In one episode, they meet the queen of Mexico, and she complains she is the only queen who has to go to the bathroom outside the palace. That joke was fine on its own. We didn't need to see her actually doing this. It looks as though some of the writers think Viewers Are Morons when it comes to jokes appealing to five-year-olds.

This really didn't need the accusatory last sentence. I might suggest making this YMMV.

What is the page's definition? Is it gratuitous vulgarity, like the example you quoted? Is it turning to vulgarity when all else fails, which is the opposite? Is it the trope by which vulgarity is funny? Is if the misapprehension that vulgarity is funny? Of is this just a Vulgar Moments page?

It seems like a mixture of all of those.

Should we rename the page "Vulgarity Index" and try to salvage some actual tropes from it?

That'd work.

The snowcloned name would appear to indicate that it's more of a "making something less offensive by way of excessive vulgarity" thing. In the above example, for instance, patriotic Mexicans might have been more offended by the inane Ruritania gag alone than by the equally inane Toilet Humor gag that ensued.

The description's second paragraph, meanwhile, seems to indicate it's more of a "CrossesTheLineTwiceFailure", in which a work attempts to construct a joke that's too vulgar to be offensive, but it just ends up looking excessively vulgar.

Meanwhile, the laconic seems to be saying it's just Pandering to the Base with vulgarity.

It looks like we're gonna need to discuss this a bit. Does Cartman's song about Kyle's mom count? If so does it only count In-Universe because Kyle seems to be less offended after the song than before it? (notwithstanding what happens next) Does it count because the audience was less offended by the song than by Kyle was? Does it count because it attempted to leave the audience less offended than Kyle but it didn't work? Does it count in any of these cases because the trope definition is really broader than the description makes it look?

edited 29th Apr '12 12:54:49 PM by EnragedFilia

half of the example section would probably fit on Crossing the Line Twice. The other half is Crossing The Line Once.

Take a look at the YKTTW. Originally, the page had three sentences of description and was defined as the belief that vulgarity is always funny. Its examples at launch time, all Zero Contexr Examples, were just works that contained vulgar humor.

The definition is still loading a work with vulgar humor.

And I wrote the example noted in the OP, but that was years ago, before I got a hang of what was and wasn't a good example. The show still fits on the page, but the example can easily be trimmed.

Scanning through the page, a lot of these examples tend to be listings without saying why it qualifies, and those that do tend to be complaining. Seriously, we should either YMMV this or give it an Example Sectionectomy like what happened with its sorta-parent trope, Lowest Common Denominator.

Or fix it to be more objective, and require that examples note the kind of jokes that would make a work qualify.

Tropes Are Not Good, Tropes Are Not Bad, find a trope here or delete it... move it to the darth wiki and let us fix it there, but I'd rather see it cut than see another page in the subjective bin with no examples. Our subjective bin overfilled as is, its supposed to be for fandom happenings, Critical Dissonance and stuff that failed to make the Trivia tab, not for tropers who feel the need to voice their personal opinions, Take It To The Forums, or at least to Headscratchers.

I think we should at least try to fix things before considering the Sectionectomy option.

I don't thin an Example Sectionectomy is an option unless we assign this page a definition, which it currently lacks. A page that's exampleless ''and' definitionless is no improvement.

Well, it's been a few weeks and nothing's changed. We need some action, dammit!

Yeesh, over a month and still no action. We have to do something. We still have a barely-defined trope and potentially flame baity examples.

We first need to pick a definition. Any ideas?

Isn't that really YKTTW's jurisdiction?

How about we just remove all examples (examples of what?) and leave this as an index, preferably with a rename? Leaving the current name as a redirect of course.

I mean, if anyone as an idea for a trope about vulgarity, I'd be all for it. But the current page has no definition. It's like if Comedy Tropes were called "Laughing Out Loud" and included a random selection of examples of humor.

According to the definition as it currently stands, this appears to be "a work uses vulgarity to make something funny". That is not an absence of a definition.

So, fix this and call it Vulgar Humor?

Or Vulgarity As Humor? I think there's a difference between that and humor which merely contains vulgarity.

The problem's not the definition. It's the potentially insulting manner of some of the examples. That's what I've been trying to fix with this thread.

That's a cleanup job, and you don't need a TRS thread for that. Just use the pinned cleanup thread in Special Efforts.

If you feel the name or definition need changing or clarifying, then you use TRS.

(a ninja ate my baby)

edited 23rd Jun '12 9:54:49 AM by Routerie

That's the problem. Most of the examples are also Zero Context Examples or otherwise don't say why they fit the trope. And when it's not, it's complaining. I don't think this page would be suitable for tropes.

edited 24th Jun '12 11:55:07 AM by MadMan400096