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

So you're saying there's no workable definition for this page and we should just redirect links elsewhere? I'm with you.

You still haven't specified how the definition is responsible for the bad examples. And you really haven't specified how the examples are so irredeemably bad that cleanup would be useless. If the examples need pruning, we prune them. If the definition is asking for negative examples, we give it a warning about negativity. I can't imagine how a definition would be 'asking' for Zero Context Examples, so once those are removed or properly expanded, we should be left with a perfectly manageable page.

edited 24th Jun '12 12:35:32 PM by EnragedFilia

Well, this is the Laconic: "Crude, unrefined humor used for pandering to the Lowest Common Denominator."

Something like this is bound to attract complaining (especially considering Lowest Common Denominator's rather subjective meaning). And since complaining isn't acceptable here on TV Tropes, people just use Zero Context Examples.

edited 24th Jun '12 6:46:36 PM by MadMan400096

That strikes me as a bad laconic. Isn't this for characters who are so vulgar that you can't take it seriously? (Jay in the Jay & Silent Bob series being a very prominent example)

That's Crosses the Line Twice - so offensive its funny.

(The current description claims the difference is as follows: "The difference between this and Crosses the Line Twice would be if someone farts and what happens next. In Crosses the Line Twice, the fart flares up a candle, which burns down the building. In Refuge in Vulgarity, the character farts and then soils themselves. Not really funny just for that." So, Refuge in Vulgarity is Vulgarity Is Not Funny - one more unworkable definition to add to our list of four.

edited 24th Jun '12 9:19:58 PM by Routerie

So crosses the line twice with vulgarity done badly?

Or perhaps "vulgarity for the sake of being funny", which may or may not succeed.

Any usable definition definitely should not include "...but not funny" as the current laconic seems to imply, because that would attract negativity.

Agreed. Should we slash that part off of the laconic?

So, Vulgar Humor then?

Sure thing. We just need a mod's okay.

Okay, I'm bumping this up to say that I've updated the Laconic from "Crude, unrefined humor used to pander to the Lowest Common Denominator." to "Rule of Funny applied to vulgarity". This should clear the meaning up, and avoid any Flame Bait. I suggest we alter the article a bit to fit the new Laconic.

edited 8th Jul '12 7:03:07 PM by MadMan400096

Rule of Funny is "it doesn't make sense, but it's okay if it's funny."

How do we apply that to vulgarity? It doesn't make sense, but it's okay it it's vulgar? It's vulgar, but it's okay if it's funny?

Oh. Hadn't thought of that. I'll just change it to "Vulgarity Played for Laughs".

UPDATE: Now I've pruned nearly the whole article to make sure that the Flame Bait will die down somewhat.

edited 9th Jul '12 4:22:06 PM by MadMan400096

Great.

Now, does this need a rename? The trope has nothing to do with taking refuge in vulgarity. It's just plain using vulgarity - for humor.

Yeah, probably. One suggestion I have is Dead Baby Comedy, since that used to be confused for what I've changed this trope to be.

edited 10th Jul '12 6:10:17 AM by MadMan400096

Crowner hooked up.

Thanks.

Okay, I think a sufficient amount of time has passed, and the votes are unanimous. It's getting a rename.

edited 13th Aug '12 5:17:00 PM by MadMan400096

Okay, no action in over two weeks. Should we start discussion on the new name or just clock it and let it die if time runs out?

Holler for crowner call. Or post in the FAQ thread for crowners which lack votes.

Made a crowner, hollered.

Calling crowner in favor of a rename.

New crowner up, go to town.

Alrighty then, it's been a few months, and Vulgar Humor seems to be the winner here.

Bump. It appears that Vulgar Humor is the winning option. Any objections?