Most people are, I think, sick to death of this debate that has lagged for years.
As am I, but reading this...
If it becomes a problem, it becomes a problem. At least it will be a new thread and not this old lumbering behemoth.
...I have to ask, "Why bother to even go forth with something that has significant
potential to be a problem if we can just work to avoid
having the problem in the first place?"
These tropes are intended to be directly related to philosophical arguments (within works) that observe amoral motivations driving human nature. And that appears to be lost on nearly everyone else pushing for the misuse to be its own trope. The real misuse either ignores
the philosophy behind the concept and just describes evil or selfish acts performed by individual characters who just happen to be human (which is, very much, insignificant for a trope) or is an opinion
of an editor about real
humans being bastards, based on events that transpire in a work (which is subjective opinion and YMMV
, at best, or argumentative Natter
, at worst). Make a trope around this, and we have something that ignores the basic premise this was supposed to be founded on and makes the entire matter either meaningless or a forum for subjective opinions of individual editors.
At least, don't let what is already a problem with Humans Are Bastards
wicks be present on a new page; this is just common sense, really. Can someone expand
on this "people are bastards" definition that has been proposed so that it doesn't include the editor opinions and the trivial "human character does something evil" nonsense that contributes nothing? I've shared my own solutions with how to avoid this, but if you guys are just going to reject it, how do you propose we avoid giving the unwanted
misuse a place in the new article?
edited 24th Feb '12 9:20:42 AM by SeanMurrayI