Misused: Insane Troll Logic

The trope description seems to indicate that it's for times when the logic is actually explained and absolutely insane, and a few of the examples on the page reflect this.

However, it's been wicked to a lot when the line of logic is /not/ explained, and is instead something along the lines of "If he likes sugar, then he's a Nazi!" without any sort of ludicrous pseudo-logic explained. Even a few examples on the page are like this, for instance, the Geico ad under "Advertisements".

Of course, there are enough wicks to this page that it would take ages, but do we delete a bunch of wicks or do we change the description to match the misuse?

I think it can work for any kind of strange logic. Explaining their bizzare thought-process is nice but not required.

"If he likes sugar, then he's a Nazi!" is pretty strange logic. Another example, "I don't go to the zoo because the sounds of elephants will give me cancer." That is obviously nuts and so no explaination is necessary.

You can't explain insane thought. Trying will only sound even more insane.

That makes the trope more obvious when someone goes to great lengths to try to explain their crazy, but it isn't required.

When you get into things like "obviously insane" you tend to get wide variation in what different editors consider "obvious" or "insane". A page for any idea that doesn't seem logically sound to the person that makes the edit isn't really a trope.

I prefer the idea of explaining on the page that this is for when an idea is explicitly portayed as having faulty logic.

I like Wutaz's idea.

My vote is to clean the wicks. The name implies there is *some* logic at hand, and that it is both insane, and bizarre in some fashion.

"He like sugar, so he's a Nazi" is not ITL in and of itself, but "He likes sugar, that means he eats danishes, that means he's German, that means he's a Nazi", by adding a few steps, turns it into a valid example: reasoning has been provided, but it is of a sort that even a layman can see is profoundly flawed.

To be more concrete, the "insurance taste test" ad is probably not valid and should be removed.

Thanks Luc "Pagestarter" French

edited 13th Aug '15 3:20:52 AM by Luc

I like what Luc is talking about. It's something that appears to have a logical thought progress; it looks like a rational train of thought. Except it's bonkers.

"explaining" might be too severe. I think any kind of recognition from other characters that this character isn't making any sense would be better. In other words, In-universe examples only.

In-universe acknowledgment works for other tropes, but it wouldn't for this one. I see Insane Troll Logic as more of a cogitational trope than a conversational one; nobody's reaction is needed to validate it.

I'm putting my vote in for the "explanation" version as well. Simply making an inane statement isn't ITL. Making usual but commonplace logical fallacies really tend to be hit or miss unless the actual train of thought is thoroughly bewildering.

I've also seen a few examples that aren't even an attempt at insane logic and probably should be removed like the Haruhi Suzumiya (Complaining rather than insanity) Char's Counterattack (attacks the logic of the aims Big Bad rather than there being any actual bizarre logic) or the Emperor's New Groove (Just plain being a jerkass under the pretense of faulty logic)

I'd have to stand by examples like the Monty Python page quote, Baka and Test's wick and the numerous 8-Bit Theater Red Mage examples as the standard. The logic itself should at least look sound on the surface but the actual methods and train of thought should be obviously bonkers.

I don't think any explanation or explicit intermediate steps are necessarily needed, but it should at least be made plausible that it's some kind of logical thinking involved.

For example, "He eats sugar so he must be a Nazi" could be Insane Troll Logic but it could also be that the person saying it isn't even thinking, but has just somehow been taught to associate sugar with Nazis. Or it could even be valid, sane logic if the world is strange enough (say, in a Nazi-occupied city with a severe sugar sortage; only certified party members are allowed to buy sugar).

Having the person explain his thinking is of course the most obvious way of showing that there really is ITL involved, but I think it can be made plausible anyway, for example if a person suddenly encounters something they've never seen or even heard of before (a flying pig, for example) and immediately jumps to a strange conclusion ("This pig flies, hence it must be an alien in disguise" - provided the person has no experience of aliens or flying pigs).

edited 25th Aug '15 1:04:37 PM by GnomeTitan

I'm not sure if that can actually happen.

But then it's not really Insane Troll Logic anymore. The example you gave actually makes an amount of sense. Luc's example works better for a proper example because rather than logically going through an understandable thought process, it's a nonsensical chain of things that doesn't prove anything. Which is what the trope is about, as far as I can tell.

I still don't see how that fits. Where's the quote-unquote "logic"?

edited 4th Sep '15 8:17:39 AM by MercuryPenny1

The "logic" in that scenario is that, if something's able to fly, it must have alien superpowers. Just because a logical chain is very short doesn't mean it's not still logic.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

I'll address your three points one by one:

1. "I'm not sure if that can actually happen" - that's what I'm trying to show with my examples, but I think you might be using a different definition of "logic" than I am.

2. "Then it's not Insane Troll Logic anymore" - that's exactly my point. You can't tell from just that statement whether it's Insane Troll Logic or not, so the audience must be able to make some sort of inference about the thought process behind it. Which is why I gave the example with the flying pig.

3. To expand a bit on what Raven Wilder wrote, the logic is "The pig flies. Anything that can fly without wings has alien superpowers. Hence the pig has alien superpowers." and "Anything with alien superpowers that doesn't look like an alien must be an alien in disguise. The pig has alien superpowers but does not look like an alien. Hence it is an alien in disguise." This is actually two perfectly valid syllogisms, it's just that the premises are completely out of touch with reality.

EDITED: Maybe you could say that the flying pig example doesn't qualify as Insane Troll Logic because the logical process isn't insane, but just the premises. Maybe, but the point of the example was to show that even from just a blurted-out statement like that, you can conclude that there is logic involved. You don't have to break down your argument into steps for people to understand that you are using logical reasoning.

edited 7th Sep '15 9:14:23 AM by GnomeTitan

Actually Amuro calls Char's Logic insane. Char's logic is he wants to drop an asteroid on earth and force all of humanity to space thus would stop all the war and the damage to the planet. He does not realize how much damage the asteroid will do, let alone the fact that war would still continue just fully in space.

Char's logic is insane and flawed in so many ways and flat out called out on it.

edited 7th Sep '15 8:25:53 PM by Memers

Bumping so this can stay open.

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

Bump.

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

Locking per New Year Purge.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman