Ambiguous Name: Too Dumb To Live

@50: How well known is that term though? That's the first time I've ever heard of that term, and it barely have anything to do with the actual Darwinian theory.

Personally, I don't think the name is that ambiguous, and see no reason for a rename.

edited 16th Jan '17 7:02:37 PM by Adept

Darwin Award is pretty much about real life people who died because of their stupidity. (They're "awarded" post-mortem of course.)

Memers was basically suggesting to call our fictional examples of Too Dumb to Live as Darwin Award winners.

And yeah, as maxwellsilver said, our real life usage for the term "too dumb to live" is subjective, not to mention a potential Flame Bait.

edited 16th Jan '17 9:51:09 PM by Getta

"And keep in mind the precedent of "Too X To Live" tropes being death tropes, which I assume is why the change was made." - maxwellsilver

If the snowclone pattern is based on disregarding a phrase's real life usage, it too should be re-evaluated.

"Plus "character should have died from their stupidity" is rather subjective." - maxwellsilver

To the extent of whether or not a given risk to life and limb was justified is subjective? Sure.

But the level of risk being assumed by characters is something spelled out, if not by real life, then within the context of a work's stated or implied deviations from real life.

At least this would be based on decisions, rather than the matter of chance that is how they turned out.

. . .

EDIT: As for Darwin awards, as popular as they may be online, mocking the dead for decisions they made while alive isn't exactly the norm offline. It'd probably be best we avoid invoking their jargon. (That and it'd probably be better to go for something descriptive than something requiring familiarity with that site.)

edited 17th Jan '17 3:15:08 PM by neoYTPism

We also have What An Idiot for stupid actions that don't necessarily result in someone's death. Life-threatening stupidity is an example.

What An Idiot is for stupidity that may or may not have anything to do with a risk of getting the stupid character killed. Too Dumb to Live would be a subtrope of that whichever way it's defined.

What An Idiot is a YMMV item though. Too Dumb to Live is a character, while WAI is a moment. They're not related in super/subtrope way.

Like, how? Kindly educate me.

Then something straight forward? Like Killed By Their Own Idiocy?

How about a new trope to fit the previous description, like Life Threatening Stupidity and move the applicable examples there?

What An Idiot is for stupidity that may or may not have anything to do with a risk of getting the stupid character killed.

That is exactly what I said.

edited 17th Jan '17 6:38:13 PM by maxwellsilver

Not quite. You implied that the distinction was What An Idiot was merely about stupidity that didn't get them killed, while I pointed out that it had nothing to do with the risk thereof.

If we're to have a supertrope for "life-threatening stupidity" and a subtrope for "life-threatening stupidity that gets them killed," wouldn't letting the current remain the supertrope, so we don't have to look for and remove misuse, be more efficient? At least then, the subtrope is starting fresh.

If we start with "in real life, this sort of thing would be a significant risk to one's survival" by default, we can then decide whether to also count examples that aren't such risks in real life but are in the story, or not to count examples that are such risks in real life but aren't in the story.

My question: Are we sure that (1) is not subjective? If it's really not, then (2) might count but (3) is a subversion.

Of course we're sure it's not subjective what's risky for survival in real life. There's room for uncertainty, yes, and maybe some things we thought were safe will turn out to be risky (or vice versa) but "subjective" isn't about uncertainty, it's about normative statements. (Ie. Whether or not something is worth the risk to one's survival,)

No. My exact words are "stupid actions that don't necessarily result in someone's death". I did not imply instances of someone being killed or nearly killed were inadmissible, you inferred that.

Since What An Idiot already covers a wide range of stupidity including life threatening and non-life threatening, changing Too Dumb to Live to the latter is pointless, as it will only be The Same, but More Specific.

I think it's safe to close this thread.

"No. My exact words are "stupid actions that don't necessarily result in someone's death". I did not imply instances of someone being killed or nearly killed were inadmissible, you inferred that." - maxwellsilver

I'm not really sure what you're saying... or what you're saying I said you said. Let's take a step back.

Post 53: The level of risk being assumed by characters is something spelled out, if not by real life, then within the context of a work's stated or implied deviations from real life. At least this would be based on decisions, rather than the matter of chance that is how they turned out.

^note (So far, post 53 is clearly referring to risks to survival, not risks to "the mission," or risks to "one's reputation" etc... that could be applicable for What An Idiot examples.)

Post 54: We also have What an Idiot for stupid actions that don't necessarily result in someone's death. Life-threatening stupidity is an example.

^note (As though the distinction between What An Idiot and Too Dumb to Live were about the nature of the consequences, not the nature of the decisions.)

Post 55: What an Idiot is for stupidity that may or may not have anything to do with a risk of getting the stupid character killed. Too Dumb to Live would be a subtrope of that whichever way it's defined.

Post 58: That is exactly what I said.

Post 59: Not quite. You implied that the distinction was What an Idiot was merely about stupidity that didn't get them killed, while I pointed out that it had nothing to do with the risk thereof.

Do you see where I was coming from here, at the very least? It was not an unreasonable interpretation of your post.

. . .

"Since What an Idiot already covers a wide range of stupidity including life threatening and non-life threatening, changing Too Dumb to Live to the latter is pointless, as it will only be The Same, but More Specific." - maxwellsilver

Why would it be just the same but more specific if "character does stupid thing that gets them killed" is not?

. . .

"I think it's safe to close this thread." - maxwellsilver

Eh, it's not like that's up to either of us anyway. Though I do think doing so while the crowner is still tied is a tad premature.

What I meant was What An Idiot is about stupid actions in general, while Too Dumb to Live is about stupid actions which results in that person's death.

What An Idiot does not require someone to die from a stupid decision, but if someone were to die from their own stupidity, it would still qualify as an example.

"What an Idiot does not require someone to die from a stupid decision, but if someone were to die from their own stupidity, it would still qualify as an example." - maxwellsilver

Of course. But risks to survival (as opposed to risks to the mission, risks to one's reputation, etc...) are a subset of What An Idiot examples, and risks to survival that end in death are a subset of those. So it's The Same But More Specific either way.

Just FYI, this trope is potholed often, like on The Simpsons, to refer to an extremely dumb character like Ralph Wiggum. This is misuse, right?

edited 20th Jan '17 10:12:16 PM by YasminPerry

If he hasn't died due to his own stupidity then yes its misuse.

What about this?

• What An Idiot changed to '"What An Idiot" Moment' like it reads on the page, they did something Facepalmingly stupid and many times someone in the work will Face Palm themselves.
• Chronic Idiot Syndrome: The character is an idiot and the work points this out every second. Ralph Wiggim is the poster child for it.
• Death By Their Own Stupidity: This trope

edited 20th Jan '17 10:37:04 PM by Memers

"Ralph Wiggum" was once a trope used for "that ridiculously retarded character". But that sounds too derogatory and also prone to misuse, so it's mixed in with The Ditz.

(Even potholing Ralph Wiggum will get you The Ditz. Wow.)

edited 21st Jan '17 4:44:59 AM by Getta

I was referring to rewriting Too D Umb To Live to risks to personal survival, rather than being killed due to a stupid decision, being The Same, but More Specific as What An Idiot.

Again, what makes "risks that do kill the character in question" not a case of The Same But More Specific?

What An Idiot does not require the person in question die and instead covers a broad range of stupidity, whereas Too Dumb to Live does require they die as a result and thus covers a very narrow range of stupidity.

So the two tropes are similar in concept but dissimilar in execution.

Moreover, What An Idiot is an Audience Reaction trope, and Too Dumb to Live isn't.

Bumping after 10 days... the two leading crowner options are still tied.

Should we hook the crowner to the thread and see if that speeds up the process?

edited 1st Feb '17 1:35:44 PM by neoYTPism

Do it.

I feel like a large part of why this trope is being misused is because there isn't really a trope that's a good stopgap between The Ditz / Lethally Stupid and Too Dumb to Live that isn't an Audience Reaction. People often misuse the latter because they want to describe an action someone did as life threatening and dumb but don't want to resort the latter 2 as they imply that the character is NATURALLY stupid rather than just occasionally making a bad judgment call or just frequently doing dumb things without getting killed. Lethally Stupid in particular heavily implies only others are in danger and never the character themselves. The Fool doesn't work because luck is implied. Idiot Houdini doesn't work because it holds a connotation of these actions being frequent and how they should lead to bad things when instead great things happen. Idiot Ball doesn't work because that's for random stupid mistakes that a character wouldn't be expected to make. What An Idiot is an audience reaction which can't be put on character pages. I think you get the idea.

In other words, Too Dumb to Live seems to get misused because we don't have a trope like it that doesn't have the "To Live" baggage attached, but compared to other more well defined idiot tropes or ones that are harder to mold the way the person wants, Too Dumb to Live ends up getting misused. I personally think either a new trope is needed or an existing one be broadened to accomadate this usage.

edited 4th Feb '17 9:49:51 PM by TimG5