Complaining: Anti Shipping Goggles

This has a bunch of problems.

First and foremost, this is basically "complaining about shippers you don't like." Not even ships, but shippers themselves. Why do we need that? The examples themselves basically read as perfect encapsulations of Shipping Goggles; the examples seem to be someone denouncing a ship because theirs is so much more obvious. This is especially obvious in the tone... a lot of examples are just written as sarcastic "Oh yeah, there's totally no attraction there" which is just sloppy. Why do we have an article that basically exists to facilitate Ship-to-Ship Combat? This is me resisting the urge to make a pun about how it's an ocean. Because that's where ships fight. Ah, I am the very image of self-restraint.

Secondly, the page can't really decide how canon a couple has to be to qualify for it. The closest thing to a minimum requirement I can find is "there has been a Ship Tease" which is... not enough, in my opinion. It vaguely makes sense for a page about people who don't see an Official Couple, but "refusing to acknowledge a Ship Tease" is vagueness upon vagueness. Especially if what is regarded as a Ship Tease and what's Ho Yay is up for denbate, which they often are.

And finally, it's only got 24 wicks somehow. For a page of this age, and one that's so... enthused, that's a shockingly low number. Over a hundred inbounds, though. I personally wouldn't mind a cut.

So way I see it, we've got a few options:

• 1: Cut. Possibly turn into a redirect for Shipping Goggles, because they're effectively the same thing.
• 2: As suggested in an old discussion, cut examples.
• 3: Clarify and establish how canon a couple needs to be to qualify. Like I said, "fans ignore the Official Couple for their ship" seems like something we could have (though it'd be very similar to Fan-Preferred Couple).

edited 28th May '15 12:28:22 PM by Larkmarn

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

I vote option 3, seems distinct enough. Is it YMMV or not? Because it should be.

Edit: maybe broader than just "people refuse to accept the Official Couple in favour of their ship" - include both that and "people refuse to accept the Official Couple because it's a No Yay". Super-Trope to No Yay? I don't think super to Fan-Preferred Couple, though, because there's not necessarily any anti-shipping of the Official Couple there.

edited 30th May '15 7:00:22 AM by lakingsif

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!

Cut.

Bump.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Sounds very complainy to me. I say either cut entirely or cut examples.

Slightly related, but I think Shipping Goggles is kind of unecessary itself because it's often covered by other shipping tropes (which even the description admits).

edited 12th Jun '15 2:04:11 AM by Karxrida

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

I agree. Most people just list examples under the "Shipping" banner, anyway.

I think we need Shipping Goggles at least as an exampleless definition page to explain the concept. Not sure if Anti Shipping Goggles needs the same, but I'm leaning towards just cutting it.

I feel like the examples might need to be cut, except maybe for really extreme examples or in-writer fighting (like the Bleach anime people deliberately downplaying or removing all Ichigo/Orhime, for example), but the term should still be defined or at least merged with Shipping Goggles because it is a term, to me at least. It's the opposite of looking for any evidence that supports your ship, it's outright ignoring or rejecting that there's any evidence at all of a competing ship or a ship you don't like.

Oissu!

That's a good idea, too.

Bump.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

I can get behind cutting the examples, just to be safe.

she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report

Cut examples on both, Fan Speak term with Anti Shipping Goggles as a redirect to Shipping Goggles.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

That’s my preferred solution as well.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

x2

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Make it so

Agree with crazysamaritan.

Do we need a crowner of make it official?

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Not when there's unanimous consensus and regular posting.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Five people formally agree, and several people earlier in the thread essentially agreed with similar ideas.

Unless we get a last minute "bwahahahahahha! Let's expand the page!" it does seem likely. I suppose we should wait until 2 full weeks after the suggestion was formally made.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Yeah, the post was basically "we've been talking about pretty much the same thing for a month, here's a formal proposal."

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I don't thin we need this page.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I don't agree. I thought it should be cut a month ago and I still think so.

Whether the article should be cut or not seems to me to hinge upon the question of whether Anti Shipping Goggles exist outside of the phenomena of Shipping Goggles. That is, do there exist people who exclusively anti-ship?

Skimming a few of the examples, it seems to me that Anti Shipping Goggles really means "person is wearing Shipping Goggles for Ship A, and therefore persists in not seeing any evidence for Ship B." Which is substantively the same thing as Shipping Goggles.

Does anyone see enough (any?) examples that suggest otherwise?

edited 10th Jul '15 8:56:23 PM by shrikelet

REMAIN INDOORS

Yeah. Something that immediately comes to mind: quoting the trope description itself,

So, for example, if you're the kind of a person who wants to enjoy the show but is not a fan of homosexual relationships, you end up vehemently denying it even when the subtext is obvious. So you deny the romantic Alice/Betty subtext because you dislike female/female relationships in general, not because you ship Alice or Betty with anyone else.

Of course, while the examples on the page state "lots of fans deny this pairing is canon", most of them don't state why exactly these fans do that—out of dislike for the ship, or out of their like for another ship. However, it's undeniable that fans like that exist.

edited 12th Jul '15 2:34:15 PM by Korodzik

To quote from the first post:

"Not even ships, but shippers themselves. Why do we need that?"

We don't.