It's illustrative, but squicky: Bury Your Gays

While I'll grant it may illustrate the trope just fine, I can't be the only one who gets squeamish looking at a page picture full of dead bodies and slurs written on the wall in their blood. And it's not safe for work. I know it's a death trope and hardly pleasant, but surely it could do with a less graphic picture? Or maybe I'm just a prude who needs to restock on Brain Bleach.

Should it stay or should it go?

That one was chosen after much debating and mild modification of the image. I think it gets the point across, isn't NSFW, and is an over all excellent image.

Fight smart, not fair.

I like Lesbian Whores. It was the most honest moment from Watchmen. Really, how weak are you that you can't handle it? Also, quit looking at T Vtropes and get back to work.

What Deboss said.

I was actually expecting to see something far worse when I saw this described as "squicky."

That said, I really like the current image. It's no worse than the image on Chaotic Evil.

edited 1st Dec '10 2:08:24 PM by SeanMurrayI

I'm in favor of keeping the image, but...the Joker has no corpses in that picture, and he could be using lipstick for all we know.

Alright, there are no corpses... but c'mooooooon, lipstick?!?!?!?

Nobody can spread lipstick around on a glass surface like that using only their finger. I've checked!

Well blood certainly doesn't spread like that, being a runny liquid and all.

Depends on the age of it. Expose it to air for a little bit and it gets thicker. I was a strange child and had a lot of skinned knees.

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

It does if you let it congeal a bit. Obviously you have never finger-painted with blood!

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I always assumed that he was writing with his face paint; especially with the way he paints a smile on at the end of it.

Reaction Image Repository

Maybe it's just me, but the current image isn't completely NSFW, I do think it's way too graphic for a trope that, frankly, doesn't have to be that way. Plus, besides the aforementioned brownish Wall Writing, the sexual preference of the two corpses isn't really that clear.

Perhaps if we used a Political Cartoon, we might be able to make light of the situation. If you ask me, with a trope this touchy, it's better off imageless.

edited 1st Dec '10 8:19:41 PM by Mattonymy

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

The sexual preferences of someone are never obvious (unless you see them actually kissing or having sex with someone). The wall writing makes this as clear as it can get.

Personally, I'm fine with the picture. It's a bit nasty, but then, it's a nasty trope.

edited 2nd Dec '10 3:21:47 AM by DoktorvonEurotrash

Laconic: no happy endings for gays. It doesn't get much less happy than violent murder.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I honestly just don't see the point in why we even need to award a trope like this such a graphically depicted image (and frankly a not very clear one either) when there are so many Death Tropes that A) don't have one/don't need one or B) certainly are not this graphic (case in point for A: Accidental Murder, Acquitted Too Late, Death by Racism & Death by Mocking- which is pretty much the near equivalent of this trope; and for B: Ate His Gun, Blood from the Mouth, Cruel and Unusual Death, Deader than Dead). And, for those more graphically portrayed (Bloody Hilarious) at least they're animated, which somewhat lessens the tension.

Also, I didn't want to have to bring this into the conversation, but homosexual deaths and suicide is a very hot topic issue, whether you realize it or not, for many people who actually visit this site (like me- not because I swing that way, but I do happen to know a few gay acquaintances) and I strongly feel that using an image of this graphic intensity might lead visitors to make incorrect assumptions about this site. Not everyone saw Watchmen, so I know for a fact the film isn't on our "Short List of Recognizable Fiction" and I also don't find it unlikely some might actually interpret this as Real Life hate speech. I feel like it's almost as disturbing as using a KKK burning on Death by Racism (which is not what I'm suggesting). I mean look, NSFW even states that kids do netsurfing and may stumble upon this site- how is an image of real humans lying in a bloody pool while an ambiguous hate message written in some kind of blackish spread at all safe for younger viewers? And honestly, how are we at all benefitting from using an image like this in the first place? The fact that people can already imagine what gay death must be like is good enough- we don't need a sick freakin visual representation for crying out loud!

So Yeah, that's my two cents on the issue. Sorry if I sounded a little PO'd there, but I've seen gay intolerance before and it's just horrible.

edited 2nd Dec '10 3:37:46 AM by Mattonymy

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

We seem to have the opposite opinions for the same reason. I think that the picture is appropriate because hate crimes are vile.

About the picture potentially being triggering for people who have personal experience or a strong reaction to homophobia - there, I think you have a point. But the page itself would probably still be triggering for such people, even without a picture.

Exactly. I'd rather we not push our luck with these homophobic/racial death tropes by having an actual visual representation of said hate crime. The trope name itself is enough of a dead giveaway.

It's already common knowledge that hate speech is vile. Having an image is simply unnecessary and can only raise more issues that solve them.

edited 2nd Dec '10 4:34:17 AM by Mattonymy

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

Disagree. Going by the name alone, I thought "bury" meant "hide" (Spear Counterpart for Hide Your Lesbians, maybe). The image makes it immediately obvious that in this case "bury" means "kill".

I didn't like the Watchmen Film of the Book, it was like an adaptation version of the uncanny valley: looks the same and sounds the same, but something is not quite right. But I like that image. It is powerful.

edited 2nd Dec '10 10:40:03 AM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

It's seriously not necessary. I don't see why we need an image for homosexual hate speech on a site, and really it only raises more issues than it solves. Its completely NSFW and is actually very disturbing for for many people.

It's called Bury your gays. The only way this could possibly be interpreted as "hide" is if someone was so completely Literal-Minded that they actually think burying people means something like at a beach.

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

Are you saying I am completely Literal-Minded? I interpreted it that way. Please don't assume your interpretation is obvious or "normal". Saying that something can't (well, won't...) be interpreted in some way is an argument from ignorance.

Bury Your Gays is clearly painted as "not cool" / discredited in the article. We apparently have different opinions about several things. It's obviously not warm and fuzzy, but I don't find it disturbing or misleading.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

^^Actually, when I only read the title of the trope in this topic, I initially thought it was about keeping gay characters hidden or heavily downplayed, too, and I don't think I'm being Literal-Minded, per se.

Now, in an earlier post, you argued against the picture while claiming that it "isn't completely NSFW."

edited 2nd Dec '10 10:35:25 AM by SeanMurrayI

It is a valid interpretation, and really the more literal interpretation would be killing them. Literally burying them. The problem is that most of our titles aren't literal because a lot of English is figurative. As a result people who aren't literal minded assume it's just about hiding them in text.

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

(Also I read Hide Your Lesbians before Bury Your Gays; based only on the title of the latter, I thought they were more conceptually similar.)

edited 2nd Dec '10 10:41:15 AM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I changed my mind since visiting the page for Not Safe for Work.

Regardless how people may seemingly interpret this trope differently, I'm still not seeing a clear reason why an image this graphic needs to be kept on the site. We keep comparing this trope to Hide Your Lesbians, and even that trope doesn't have an image this graphically disturbing. In fact, just after sifting through Death Tropes, I don’t think any image is this disturbing. I mean for a trope this this homophobic and intolerant, it’s not like our regular image pickin’ where we simply need to find a “gayer picture”, or simply a less violent picture of their death  ^*

it’s that as long as we show a picture of two homosexual people dead, especially a live action one, it potentially opens the floodgates to either homophobic intolerance on this site, or individuals misinterpreting it and thinking we as a website are being intolerant. It’s sick, Graphic, Disturbing, and Disgusting and leaving it on this site is simply a really really bad idea.

There's already enough hate speech going around the rest of the internet, must we keep it on our site as well?

edited 2nd Dec '10 11:59:33 AM by Mattonymy

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

Er, what? The article is clearly condemning homophobia, anybody who can read can see that. Hm, not as clearly as I remember. But the article is not positive, the picture is not positive, and saying "people haven't read Watchmen" would be kinda like saying "people haven't seen Star Wars". It's iconic. If Les Miserables counts as iconic then I think Watchmen should too.

I do think that the picture doesn't really add much to the page (it's not like you need a picture to understand what "gay people get killed" means), and it would be safer just to take it off.

edited 2nd Dec '10 12:13:32 PM by melloncollie