Ask The Tropers

It might be necessary to bring tsstevens in for a chat. Recent edits show a clear agenda.

And for the record, "retarded" in the US is not even remotely on the same level as "spaz" in the UK.

Sure I have an agenda to clean up the use of comments that would be offensive if it can be done without harming the context of an example. I'm not quite sure why that would be considered wrong. From the forum discussion:

Fighteer:I don't have any fundamental problems with removing gratuitous uses of the word, just as I'd accept the removal of racial, gender, or ethnic slurs that are used outside of an appropriate context.

I have tried to limit editing out such slurs to examples used outside of appropriate context such as quotes. If there is an issue with me doing so I'd be happy to listen.

I'd say that unless one is referring to the medical condition, removing the word "Retard" can be allowable. We may be Sophisticated as Hell but we still have standards

Two days ago tsstevens removed not only the offending word, not only the quote, but the entire example despite people on the discussion and here being mostly for its inclusion. Since it's the second time he does this, that makes it an Edit War as well.

If you look I did ask why if the example was not needed then why we wanted it. Sure it gives a description of oscar bait being mocked but the fact it's offensive, somehow that doesn't matter. No one replied. So my question is should offensive examples be used? What if it was on race or sex instead?

All for it's inclusion you say? Just looking through ATT I can't seem to find this overwhelming support for it's inclusion. Could you show us where everyone supports it's inclusion please?

You asked if we needed it, Larmarn answered "It's certainly worth mentioning the discussion here and frankly, the quote does a better job illustrating it than talking about the quote would. "

Then you asked again if we needed it, and I replied that Larkmarn gave a good reason for its inclusion.

Then you asked again if we needed it, and I repeated Larkmarn's reason.

Then you asked a fourth time if we needed it, and at that point I choose to ignore it because clearly the discussion was going nowhere. Three days later, you decide that's enough and remove the entry again.

Let's see here...does sailing101 say yes include it? I can't see it. What about jormis29? Don't see their approval either. Does bwburke94 say yes include it in discussion? No. So why claim everyone wants to include it when that's not the case?

On the other hand there is approval to remove examples.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13327578050A72722200&page=28

Fighteer: I don't have any fundamental problems with removing gratuitous uses of the word, just as I'd accept the removal of racial, gender, or ethnic slurs that are used outside of an appropriate context.

Seems pretty gratuitous to me. I suggested a couple of examples that were approved to be removed so it would seem the example you have an agenda to keep should not be up after all.

If the word "retarded" is used in appropriate context, such as with a direct quote from a work, then it's acceptable. If it's being used as a form of gratuitous editorializing by the writer of the example ("The decision by the director was retarded.") it is not acceptable, any more than we'd permit racial, gender, or ethnic slurs to be used in such a way.

You also said that you have no problem with gratuitous use of such slurs. Given this is a quote what is your judgment? Should it remain because it is a quote or be removed because it is gratuitous?

That's not what I said. I said gratuitous (as in, not necessary in context) uses could be removed. I'm backing you up here.

So you would be okay with this example being removed. Sorry if I sound difficult but it is a quote, yet a quote that mocks the idea of the trope discussed and such rampant use of a slur that some find offensive, do we need it?

Okay, I'm sorry, this is the first time I'm looking at the actual example. It is a direct quote from the people in question, and as such does not meet the basic standard for removal: that it is editorializing by the writer. Whether it is "gratuitous" outside of that would depend on whether the quote is necessary to illustrate the example, and I have no direct opinion there.

What concerns me more than the use of the word "retard" is that the example is listed in a section titled "Subject matter and characters" that appears to consist of about 90 percent generalization, natter, and violations of example sorting. That entire thing should be excised with a hot knife.

Good enough for me, seems Nithael doesn't get to keep this particular example, much as all as he may want to.

Fighteer: it seems to me the problem with the Oscar Bait page is that it's fallen victim to a ton of Internal SubTropes that need to be either be split into full-blown Sub Tropes, or moved into other pages if said tropes already exist.

That's just my two cents before this inevitably gets sent to Trope Repair Shop, which is a path that I cannot follow, Anakin.

I don't mind deleting the example if it is done for a good reason, and not because tsstevens is edit warring to remove any instance of the word everywhere regardless of other people's opinion.

@Nithael: While I think that the example needs to go, simply removing that one won't solve the massive problems with the article. I think that a TRS effort is indicated, but at the very minimum the entire generalization section needs to be burned, or rewritten in an essay format in an Analysis subpage.

Oh I absolutely agree. I've always hated those 'general' examples anyway.

Ah...what everyone else says is hidden behind spoiler text is it? I have it checked to show spoilers and I cannot see this legion of people who say yes to keep the example, yes hate speech is acceptable. I do see support from the site staff to remove hate speech that is considered gratuitous, so I'm not sure where this agenda to keep it comes from.

Christ, get off your high horse.

While I agree with your, uh, quest for the most part, removing a fitting quote because it uses an offensive word is detrimental to wiki. Because you're making things less clear.

Now, as Fighteer said, there are a lot of issues with that page that may wind up seeing the quote legitimately removed, but it shouldn't get removed because of your crusade.

It shouldn't be removed because...why exactly? No one has been able to explain this.

Because it is in a quote that illustrates the trope.

But the site staff said yes the example should be removed so I am unclear why there is an agenda to keep said example and others that are not needed.

A mod said it should be pulled from that section as basically part of fixing the page, having nothing to do with your agenda. The fact you're cutting it from the page without moving it to the correct place is the problem. As such, I'm going to add it where it should have been in the first place (and where you should've moved it when it was removed) to the spoofs section.

No one but you and possibly Sailing 101 thought the quote should be excluded from the page entirely, certainly the example shouldn't have been.

I'm not even bothering to read that nonsense again. The example is gone anyway, drop it.

Now, since we don't need to discuss this in three different places, I'll answer your questions regarding the other pages where you removed an entire example because you didn't like one word in it:

Paul: You removed the explanation that "spaz" in the UK is a slur against people with disabilities just like "retard" is in the US. This is important to keep, because just saying "it's a bad word" doesn't explain why it's bad, how bad it is, and against whom it is hate speech. Also, funny how you removed only the part about the R word, and nothing about "spaz", if you're so gung-ho against hate speech.

Hanlon's Razor: you removed a legitimate example of the trope (website cracked.com theorising that Kanye West isn't intentionally trying to provoke controversy but might just be an idiot). Now yes, it was a ZCE that needed to be corrected and yes, cracked's use of the word "retarded" to denote stupidity is regrettable, but it's still a valid example.

I'm still not clear on why gratuitous hate speech is readded after it is removed. Why is there an agenda to keep hate speech?

Why do I even bother.

There isn't. There's an agenda to make the wiki as informative as possible.

Cleaning up gratuitous uses of bad words is honestly commendable. But in doing so, you can't cut cut things willy-nilly and not try to actually fix the pages.

A mod agreed the example should go not because it was offensive, but because it was a poorly-indented mess in a mess of a section. So you cut it... and left the other mess, and didn't move it to the correct section.

Also it's legitimately hilarious that you're calling it hatespeech when that quote has done more to combat casual use of the word "retard" than... pretty much anything else, ever.

Like I said, your heart's in the right place, but you're not doing the wiki a service by cutting things, ignoring discussion, and then accusing people who are trying to improve the page.

In any case, this discussion is getting waaaaaaaaaaaaay too unwieldy for ATT. We should continue it on the discussion thread on the page. Plus probably make a new thread for the issues Fighteer mentioned.

Guys. Don't Be A Dick.

tsstevens, you have to keep in mind that there's a difference between quoting someone to help emphasize your point and quoting someone to demonstrate their point. Granted, I agree with you in that this is something lots of tropers can't parse out. I would argue that we don't need to quote Tropic Thunder on Oscar Bait to get across the point that they make fun of the Inspirationally Disadvantaged trope. The quote adds nothing.

However, that doesn't mean that every instance that an offensive word/slur/hate speech is quoted that it needs to be purged from the wiki. As long as the verbatim quote emphasizes the person's point, and needs to be in full context to fully grasp what they were saying, then removing it is just vandalism.

In my opinion, the Cracked "Kanye" example (like Tropic Thunder) is no big loss. We can get the basic point across without it, and it doesn't require context. The only reason to quote it is for the amusement factor.

I'll just add that if I really had an agenda to readd hate speech, I would've reverted your edits on Ambiguous Disorder, DethroningMoment.VG Cats, Madwoman in the Attic or the many other pages where you removed or change one word. But because in these cases it wasn't necessary to include that word, or because it was actually offensive, I didn't.

Can I just ask one more thing? I do genuinely get the idea that some examples are legitimate but for some reason there is genuine anger at gratuitous examples being removed. I don't get why that is...does an article that has such slurs removed offend that much?

Yeah, saying "everyone who disagrees with me hates disabled people" is not an argument.

v, Ah, Righting Great Wrongs. I was trying to remember the page for that. Thanks.

tsstevens, in general, the staff and users of this wiki tend to dislike agenda editing, regardless of what the agenda is. Your position frankly opens the door for a lot of issues that would have everyone in here trying to figure out what offensive words to remove and which not to.

This wiki is adamant about not being a platform for Righting Great Wrongs.

Sure and that I do get but what I don't quite understand is why there seems to be legitimate anger at these edits. There's a world of difference between saying that editing out slurs on the disabled could open the floodgates and, "Christ, get off your high horse."

"I do genuinely get the idea that some examples are legitimate but for some reason there is genuine anger at such examples being removed."

Let's stop and take a look at that very sentence that you wrote for a minute. You admit that some of the examples are legitimate. Then you basically state that despite them being legitimate examples you are going to remove them anyway and then be surprised that people are upset by the removal of what you admit are "legitimate examples".

You have twice quoted Fighteer in this thread and yet it seems like you don't actually understand what was meant. Gratuitous would be the critical word, meaning uncalled for, unwarranted, and that it adds nothing beneficial. But you can't fight an insulting word or phrase by pretending it doesn't exist. On T Vtropes we talk about fiction. And sometimes fiction is racist, sexist, bigoted, and prejudiced. Sometimes in mocking ways and sometimes in disturbingly truthful ways. Sometimes to talk about those works we end up discussing words that hurt people. But the discussion itself is a good thing and right now you are coming off as trying to censor that discussion. Take a deep breath, slow down, and listen to the fact that people aren't saying that they like the word or want the word but are trying to point out that it is not your job or your right to attempt to eradicate any usage of the word.

You're right. There's no need for that, and that's the exact reason I said "Guys, Don't Be a Dick".

People get angry quickly around here (myself included), for a variety of reasons. But there's zero reason to be rude.

Sorry, I'll try again. Some examples are legitimate and those ones I do leave alone. Some however, to the best of my understanding, are not and if they are not legitimate or I don't see them as legitimate then yes I do think they should be removed.

Seemingly that is offensive, removing out of context slurs is seemingly offensive. I'm not suggesting some need these slurs on the site but I do think some are legitimately upset and angry at a stand on using such slurs being made. I was merely curious why it is offensive and upsetting to remove illegitimate examples.

What is concerning is that you seem to feel that you have a need or a right to take on this crusade personally without accepting any kind of criticism or discussion. It isn't about the word itself but has become about your behavior and your attitude. Frankly, I have seen people thumped and banned for less of a Single-Issue Wonk than you are showing right now.

What is it about my attitude that concerns you? Asking why an example is allowed or where the overwhelming support for an example is, I'm not allowed to ask these things? Quoting site staff, is that the problem? Bringing up how there is a seeming vested interest on keeping hate speech on the site, does that where the problem lie?

"I don't get why that is...does an article that has such slurs removed offend that much?"

This is what is known as a loaded question. By phrasing the question like that you attempt to paint people into the corner of sounding bigoted if they disagree with you. You seem to assume that you are "right" therefore everyone else is "wrong". But the reality is that there are plenty of shades of grey to discuss and you seem unwilling to discuss any of it.

I withdraw the question then. I was just curious as to why people seemed so upset about it but if even asking is offensive then I withdraw.

And there we go again. You pretend to understand that "Some examples are legitimate", but the very next comment you say "there is a seeming vested interest on keeping hate speech on the site", thus portraying anyone who might disagree with your edits as bigots. This is why people are upset, because you refuse to hear their arguments, ignoring them completely, instead preferring to repeat the same accusations of promoting hate speech again and again and again.

And I bet your next reply will be to ask me why I want to keep hate speech on the site so much.

Ahem...

Just drop it okay?

I will come out and say it as bluntly as I can. I am offended that you are constantly backhandedly implying that I am a bigot for disagreeing with you. I suspect that is the same thing everyone else is having a problem with. The funny thing is, I don't actually disagree with you. I don't think that particular quote adds much to the example. I simply disagree with how you are going about things.

As I said I withdraw the question because it's considered offensive. Not sure what else I can do except just walk away from the issue altogether.

Sounds good to me, can we get a lock before this flares up again?