It's illustrative, but squicky: Bury Your Gays

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.

The picture has been up for months (since July) and the "floodgates" have yet to open. So I think it's safe to say it ain't gonna happen.

What's so graphic about it anyway? There's blood, that's about it. Compare with One-Hit Kill or Your Head Asplode, both of whom are far more graphic. Also, Bury Your Gays is on the mature side of the NSFG wall.

edited 2nd Dec '10 12:26:46 PM by Ghilz

The Watchmen movie isn't nearly as iconic as Star Wars and Les Miserables. The film came out only in 2009 and unlike SW or LM, it certainly not a classic that's around long enough to be considered "iconic".

The article is clearly condemning homophobia, anybody who can read can see that.

I know you crossed that out, but that's 100% the opposite reaction I got when I saw this trope and that image. Especially with the homophobic slur, and the Laconic saying: "No happy endings for gay people.", I thought this trope was trying to advocate homophobic intolerant beliefs.

What's so graphic about it anyway? There's blood, that's about it. Compare with One Hit Kill or Your Head Asplode, both of whom are far more graphic. Also, Bury Your Gays is on the mature side of the NSFG wall.

Both of those images are clearly animated or using Not So Conspicuous CGI, which lessens the tension. Also, unlike Bury Your Gays, it's a universal trope that refers to death in general, not the specific death of any certain people. Plus, in those images there isn't a kind of vile hate message written on the wall in what may or may not be blood.

edited 2nd Dec '10 12:35:52 PM by Mattonymy

The comic book isn't either.

"We keep comparing this trope to Hide Your Lesbians, and even that trope doesn't have an image this graphically disturbing."

Wrong comparison. Was a differentiation between the meaning of "hide > keep secret" and "bury > kill" (it is reasonable to assume the two tropes are very similar, but actually they are only somewhat similar). The images or subject matter were not presented as similar. (Although each trope is caused by a similar worldview.) There is no reason for Hide Your Lesbians to have a bloody image, it's not about a bloody topic.

I know "depiction isn't the same as endorsement" is a common refrain from people who just want to post something offensive, but: depiction isn't the same as endorsement.

Having seen that movie, it is difficult for me to evaluate the image without context. Consider the possibility that your reaction is unusual and it's not very disturbing in general or apparently advocating hate speech.

Honestly, as someone who is bisexual myself, I find that hiding the fact that these are dirty topics that the trope is dealing with more offensive than having an image that shows them. This trope is used in horrible violent ways and it is often used by people who think what I do in the bedroom is immoral and offensive. But hiding that and locking it away doesn't change that. They'll keep having those idea. Sticking it out there to be looked at and to have people realise how horrible it really is can. People don't change what they can't see because they don't think it affects them. Out of sight. Out of mind.

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

Do you think you might be exaggerating just a little bit there? Neither the trope article nor the image on the page are actively advocating that people show hatred towards homosexuals.

While I certainly see your point shimaspawn about addressing the topic rather than hiding it, I must disagree with your opinion on how using this image is at all useful to the page.

I mean, I saw Watchmen and was completely disturbed by that 5 second shot, but at least I know this is a fictional example and not Real Life photograph of some violent hate crime. But who's to say that doesn't mean that this image can't be interpreted as Real Life gay violence, especially to individuals who have never seen the film. By using this image, I also feel that there's absolutely no indication that we on TV Tropes find this disturbing- it just seems like unsaturated hate speech that simply going unaddressed by the page. I feel that by using this image, it's almost like we're saying "Hey look! Here at TV Tropes we think gay violence is perfectly appropriate for our site!" There's simply too many Unfortunate Implications with this image to be of any real use.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:09:59 PM by Mattonymy

A) The image IS a link to the Watchmen article, so I doubt theres much risk of thinking this is a Real Life example.

B) The image used to have a caption saying something like "Sadly stuff like that happens in the real world" but Rodney Anonymous removed it.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:12:55 PM by Ghilz

But who's to say that doesn't mean that this image can't be interpreted as Real Life gay violence, especially to individuals who have never seen the film.

I don't know, people who hover their cursors over the image and click on the link directing them to the work of fiction it came from?

Even if there was no link embedded in the picture and I was completely unfamiliar with Watchmen, would I really assume that the image came from a Real Life incident? Probably not.

You might not and I might not, because we've seen the film. But you can't make generalized statements that's how everyone else would interpret this image, especially if they are unfamiliar with the site.

And fictional example or not, it's still not entirely clear that it's not a real image. It'd be like if we used a KKK burning from The Birthof A Nation for Black Dude Dies First and claimed that it's appropriate simply because it's fictional.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:22:05 PM by Mattonymy

I thought this trope was trying to advocate homophobic intolerant beliefs.

That's what the trope is about, but there's no indication that anything is advocating that idea.

The trope is something along the lines of "gays in media don't get happy endings", and the image reflects that. There's no reason anyone would assume that TV Tropes is supporting that it. There's difference between having an image depicting a hate crime, and encouraging hate crimes. This picture simply shows what the trope looks like when it appears.

That said, I can see why the image could be considered in bad taste. Whether that's enough to merit removing it is up for debate.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:20:13 PM by JapaneseTeeth

^^Wait, you're not making generalized statements?!?!?

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:17:50 PM by SeanMurrayI

This trope is not advocating hate speak or violence against gay people, any more than the "rape is OK when..." tropes are advocating that rape is ever OK, or Scary Black Man or Yellow Peril are advocating racism.

This.

The trope is basically saying "this happens in media, and when it does, it looks like this."

It isn't pleasant, but sometimes media includes unpleasant tropes.

Except that your entire argument is based on "What ifs" "What if this someday opened a floodgate of homophobic entries to the site!" "What if someone who doesn't know the site, doesn't click the image OR Read the examples, sees it and thinks it was real life!" "What if someone didn't read the page and thought it was about how the website is homophobic!" "What if someone got squicked!"

There's no evidence that the image is causing any of this. There's not been any influx of homophobic edits. There's not been anyone really going "OMFG TV Tropes are all Homophobes!" because of that image, and the page is preceeded by the NSFG content warning.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:27:36 PM by Ghilz

It'd be like if we used a KKK burning from The Birthof A Nation for Black Dude Dies First and claimed that it's appropriate simply because it's fictional.

No, coz that would not be an accurate example of what the trope is. This is instance is.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:24:55 PM by Ghilz

Edit: ^What he said.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:27:51 PM by SeanMurrayI

Sigh, I'm tired of having to repeat myself like a broken record, so I'm just going to drop the subject before it escalates into something worse. But look, some people just don't like the image alright and personally I think keeping it on this trope is a very bad idea.

edited 2nd Dec '10 1:37:42 PM by Mattonymy

Just for the record, the caption I removed was "Yup. Sadly it often ends like this." Weeeeaaaaakkk.

I made a crowner.

Note: I find the attitude "omg it's gross someone might complain!" extremely annoying, it is advocating an increase in sterility at the expense of force and clarity, which I personally consider more insidious and evil than something more graphic and honest. But, I tried to keep my bias out of the option descriptions. Just making a last-ditch effort to stop the madness :)

edited 4th Dec '10 8:38:22 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Uh...that's not really how crowner works.

Suggest new options, and leave a vote to keep this one; don't just have one option to approve/disapprove.

The question raised in this thread is whether or not this image should be deleted.

"And fictional example or not, it's still not entirely clear that it's not a real image. It'd be like if we used a KKK burning from The Birthof A Nation for Black Dude Dies First and claimed that it's appropriate simply because it's fictional." - Mattonymy

This. I'm not very familiar with Birth of a Nation, but if we applied the same standard to a trope like this as to a trope about hate crimes against blacks, we may as well use the curb stomp scene from American History X for such a trope. o.o

I agree that there should be a caption that indicates that the image is meant to be sad and horrifying. R As right in the fact that "It happens in real life" is a weak caption so how about we discuss better captions?