[010]
MathsAngelicVersion
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think we can remove a lot of examples from the \
to:
I think we can remove a lot of examples from the \\\"Things that do \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' qualify as Fandom-Enraging Misconception\\\" folder. The new trope name makes it clear that it\\\'s about objective misconceptions, so stuff like \\\"liking TheScrappy\\\" does not qualify.
I suggest keeping the following, as they might be confused with objective misconceptions:
* Preferring one spelling of a character\\\'s name over another when there is no official spelling, or [[SpellMyNameWithAnS the spelling is inconsistent so nobody knows which is the official one]]. If there is an official spelling, but some fans often make mistakes with it, that \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' qualify. [If Alice angrily says \\\"It\\\'s Mikey, not Mickey!\\\", someone unfamiliar with the character can\\\'t tell if \\\"Mickey\\\" is wrong, or just an alternative official name that Alice happens to hate.]
* Using a [[DubNameChange character\\\'s translated name]] instead of the original. [Similar reason as above -- someone unfamiliar with a translated name might just assume whoever used it made a mistake.]
* Mentioning certain unpopular {{fanon}} theories. \\\'\\\'Mistaking\\\'\\\' said theories for official canon can be a valid example, though, as can believing explicitly {{Jossed}} theories. [Kept to emphasize the \\\"mistaking the theories for canon\\\" part.]
* Drawing fanart that makes certain changes to the characters. Even if the changes are potentially controversial or offensive, such as altering a character\\\'s [[RaceLift ethnicity]] or body type. \\\'\\\'Especially\\\'\\\' not if the fanart is a \\\"humanized\\\" version of a non-human character. [Can be confused with \\\"the artist has an objective misconception about what the character looks like\\\".]
* Referencing a character with an AmbiguousGender as either gender, or bringing up gender with a character that dresses as the opposite gender or otherwise has an AmbiguousGenderIdentity. [Some people will probably say that you just shouldn\\\'t assume a character with an AmbiguousGender is either gender.]
* Disagreeing politically with most fans. Not even if someone\\\'s being bigoted against a large portion of the fanbase (such as homophobia for a work with a large LGBTFanbase). Any misconceptions from which this bigotry might arise is not a misconception about the work in question. [Kept to emphasize that the misconception has to be about the \\\'\\\'work\\\'\\\'.]
* Anything from the list of things that do qualify, if it\\\'s not common or severe enough to significantly bother fans of the work every time it comes up. Giving a reason why the misconception is so common is a good way to make sure your example doesn\\\'t fall into this (as well as avoiding being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample). [Maybe a bit redundant with the new trope name, but I think it\\\'s worth emphasizing.]
Thoughts?
I suggest keeping the following, as they might be confused with objective misconceptions:
* Preferring one spelling of a character\\\'s name over another when there is no official spelling, or [[SpellMyNameWithAnS the spelling is inconsistent so nobody knows which is the official one]]. If there is an official spelling, but some fans often make mistakes with it, that \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' qualify. [If Alice angrily says \\\"It\\\'s Mikey, not Mickey!\\\", someone unfamiliar with the character can\\\'t tell if \\\"Mickey\\\" is wrong, or just an alternative official name that Alice happens to hate.]
* Using a [[DubNameChange character\\\'s translated name]] instead of the original. [Similar reason as above -- someone unfamiliar with a translated name might just assume whoever used it made a mistake.]
* Mentioning certain unpopular {{fanon}} theories. \\\'\\\'Mistaking\\\'\\\' said theories for official canon can be a valid example, though, as can believing explicitly {{Jossed}} theories. [Kept to emphasize the \\\"mistaking the theories for canon\\\" part.]
* Drawing fanart that makes certain changes to the characters. Even if the changes are potentially controversial or offensive, such as altering a character\\\'s [[RaceLift ethnicity]] or body type. \\\'\\\'Especially\\\'\\\' not if the fanart is a \\\"humanized\\\" version of a non-human character. [Can be confused with \\\"the artist has an objective misconception about what the character looks like\\\".]
* Referencing a character with an AmbiguousGender as either gender, or bringing up gender with a character that dresses as the opposite gender or otherwise has an AmbiguousGenderIdentity. [Some people will probably say that you just shouldn\\\'t assume a character with an AmbiguousGender is either gender.]
* Disagreeing politically with most fans. Not even if someone\\\'s being bigoted against a large portion of the fanbase (such as homophobia for a work with a large LGBTFanbase). Any misconceptions from which this bigotry might arise is not a misconception about the work in question. [Kept to emphasize that the misconception has to be about the \\\'\\\'work\\\'\\\'.]
* Anything from the list of things that do qualify, if it\\\'s not common or severe enough to significantly bother fans of the work every time it comes up. Giving a reason why the misconception is so common is a good way to make sure your example doesn\\\'t fall into this (as well as avoiding being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample). [Maybe a bit redundant with the new trope name, but I think it\\\'s worth emphasizing.]
Thoughts?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think we can remove a lot of examples from the \
to:
I think we can remove a lot of examples from the \\\"Things that do \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' qualify as Fandom-Enraging Misconception\\\" folder. The new trope name makes it clear that it\\\'s about objective misconceptions, so stuff like \\\"liking TheScrappy\\\" does not qualify.
I suggest getting rid of all but the following, as they might be confused with objective misconceptions:
* Preferring one spelling of a character\\\'s name over another when there is no official spelling, or [[SpellMyNameWithAnS written with inconsistent spelling so nobody knows which is the official one]]. If there is an official spelling, but some fans often make mistakes with it, that \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' qualify. [If Alice angrily says \\\"It\\\'s Mikey, not Mickey!\\\", someone unfamiliar with the character can\\\'t tell if \\\"Mickey\\\" is wrong, or just an alternative official name that Alice happens to hate.]
* Using a [[DubNameChange character\\\'s translated name]] instead of the original. [Similar reason as above -- someone unfamiliar with a translated name might just assume whoever used it made a mistake.]
* Mentioning certain unpopular {{fanon}} theories. \\\'\\\'Mistaking\\\'\\\' said theories for official canon can be a valid example, though, as can believing explicitly {{Jossed}} theories. [Kept to emphasize the \\\"mistaking the theories for canon\\\" part.]
* Drawing fanart that makes certain changes to the characters. Even if the changes are potentially controversial or offensive, such as altering a character\\\'s [[RaceLift ethnicity]] or body type. \\\'\\\'Especially\\\'\\\' not if the fanart is a \\\"humanized\\\" version of a non-human character. [Can be confused with \\\"the artist has an objective misconception about what the character looks like\\\".]
* Referencing a character with an AmbiguousGender as either gender, or bringing up gender with a character that dresses as the opposite gender or otherwise has an AmbiguousGenderIdentity. [Some people will probably say that you just shouldn\\\'t assume a character with an AmbiguousGender is either gender.]
* Disagreeing politically with most fans. Not even if someone\\\'s being bigoted against a large portion of the fanbase (such as homophobia for a work with a large LGBTFanbase). Any misconceptions from which this bigotry might arise is not a misconception about the work in question. [Kept to emphasize that the misconception has to be about the \\\'\\\'work\\\'\\\'.]
* Anything from the list of things that do qualify, if it\\\'s not common or severe enough to significantly bother fans of the work every time it comes up. Giving a reason why the misconception is so common is a good way to make sure your example doesn\\\'t fall into this (as well as avoiding being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample). [Maybe a bit redundant with the new trope name, but I think it\\\'s worth emphasizing.]
Thoughts?
I suggest getting rid of all but the following, as they might be confused with objective misconceptions:
* Preferring one spelling of a character\\\'s name over another when there is no official spelling, or [[SpellMyNameWithAnS written with inconsistent spelling so nobody knows which is the official one]]. If there is an official spelling, but some fans often make mistakes with it, that \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' qualify. [If Alice angrily says \\\"It\\\'s Mikey, not Mickey!\\\", someone unfamiliar with the character can\\\'t tell if \\\"Mickey\\\" is wrong, or just an alternative official name that Alice happens to hate.]
* Using a [[DubNameChange character\\\'s translated name]] instead of the original. [Similar reason as above -- someone unfamiliar with a translated name might just assume whoever used it made a mistake.]
* Mentioning certain unpopular {{fanon}} theories. \\\'\\\'Mistaking\\\'\\\' said theories for official canon can be a valid example, though, as can believing explicitly {{Jossed}} theories. [Kept to emphasize the \\\"mistaking the theories for canon\\\" part.]
* Drawing fanart that makes certain changes to the characters. Even if the changes are potentially controversial or offensive, such as altering a character\\\'s [[RaceLift ethnicity]] or body type. \\\'\\\'Especially\\\'\\\' not if the fanart is a \\\"humanized\\\" version of a non-human character. [Can be confused with \\\"the artist has an objective misconception about what the character looks like\\\".]
* Referencing a character with an AmbiguousGender as either gender, or bringing up gender with a character that dresses as the opposite gender or otherwise has an AmbiguousGenderIdentity. [Some people will probably say that you just shouldn\\\'t assume a character with an AmbiguousGender is either gender.]
* Disagreeing politically with most fans. Not even if someone\\\'s being bigoted against a large portion of the fanbase (such as homophobia for a work with a large LGBTFanbase). Any misconceptions from which this bigotry might arise is not a misconception about the work in question. [Kept to emphasize that the misconception has to be about the \\\'\\\'work\\\'\\\'.]
* Anything from the list of things that do qualify, if it\\\'s not common or severe enough to significantly bother fans of the work every time it comes up. Giving a reason why the misconception is so common is a good way to make sure your example doesn\\\'t fall into this (as well as avoiding being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample). [Maybe a bit redundant with the new trope name, but I think it\\\'s worth emphasizing.]
Thoughts?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I think we can remove a lot of examples from the \
to:
I think we can remove a lot of examples from the \\\"Things that do \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' qualify as Fandom-Enraging Misconception\\\" folder. The new trope name makes it clear that it\\\'s about objective misconceptions, so stuff like \\\"liking TheScrappy\\\" does not qualify.
I suggest getting rid of all but the following, as they might be confused with objective misconceptions:
* Preferring one spelling of a character\\\'s name over another when there is no official spelling, or [[SpellMyNameWithAnS written with inconsistent spelling so nobody knows which is the official one. If there is an official spelling, but some fans often make mistakes with it, that \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' qualify. [If Alice angrily says \\\"It\\\'s Mikey, not Mickey!\\\", someone unfamiliar with the character can\\\'t tell if \\\"Mickey\\\" is wrong, or just an alternative official name that Alice happens to hate.]
* Using a [[DubNameChange character\\\'s translated name]] instead of the original. [Similar reason as above -- someone unfamiliar with a translated name might just assume whoever used it made a mistake.]
* Mentioning certain unpopular {{fanon}} theories. \\\'\\\'Mistaking\\\'\\\' said theories for official canon can be a valid example, though, as can believing explicitly {{Jossed}} theories. [Kept to emphasize the \\\"mistaking the theories for canon\\\" part.]
* Drawing fanart that makes certain changes to the characters. Even if the changes are potentially controversial or offensive, such as altering a character\\\'s [[RaceLift ethnicity]] or body type. \\\'\\\'Especially\\\'\\\' not if the fanart is a \\\"humanized\\\" version of a non-human character. [Can be confused with \\\"the artist has an objective misconception about what the character looks like\\\".]
* Referencing a character with an AmbiguousGender as either gender, or bringing up gender with a character that dresses as the opposite gender or otherwise has an AmbiguousGenderIdentity. [Some people will probably say that you just shouldn\\\'t assume a character with an AmbiguousGender is either gender.]
* Disagreeing politically with most fans. Not even if someone\\\'s being bigoted against a large portion of the fanbase (such as homophobia for a work with a large LGBTFanbase). Any misconceptions from which this bigotry might arise is not a misconception about the work in question. [Kept to emphasize that the misconception has to be about the \\\'\\\'work\\\'\\\'.]
* Anything from the list of things that do qualify, if it\\\'s not common or severe enough to significantly bother fans of the work every time it comes up. Giving a reason why the misconception is so common is a good way to make sure your example doesn\\\'t fall into this (as well as avoiding being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample). [Maybe a bit redundant with the new trope name, but I think it\\\'s worth emphasizing.]
Thoughts?
I suggest getting rid of all but the following, as they might be confused with objective misconceptions:
* Preferring one spelling of a character\\\'s name over another when there is no official spelling, or [[SpellMyNameWithAnS written with inconsistent spelling so nobody knows which is the official one. If there is an official spelling, but some fans often make mistakes with it, that \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' qualify. [If Alice angrily says \\\"It\\\'s Mikey, not Mickey!\\\", someone unfamiliar with the character can\\\'t tell if \\\"Mickey\\\" is wrong, or just an alternative official name that Alice happens to hate.]
* Using a [[DubNameChange character\\\'s translated name]] instead of the original. [Similar reason as above -- someone unfamiliar with a translated name might just assume whoever used it made a mistake.]
* Mentioning certain unpopular {{fanon}} theories. \\\'\\\'Mistaking\\\'\\\' said theories for official canon can be a valid example, though, as can believing explicitly {{Jossed}} theories. [Kept to emphasize the \\\"mistaking the theories for canon\\\" part.]
* Drawing fanart that makes certain changes to the characters. Even if the changes are potentially controversial or offensive, such as altering a character\\\'s [[RaceLift ethnicity]] or body type. \\\'\\\'Especially\\\'\\\' not if the fanart is a \\\"humanized\\\" version of a non-human character. [Can be confused with \\\"the artist has an objective misconception about what the character looks like\\\".]
* Referencing a character with an AmbiguousGender as either gender, or bringing up gender with a character that dresses as the opposite gender or otherwise has an AmbiguousGenderIdentity. [Some people will probably say that you just shouldn\\\'t assume a character with an AmbiguousGender is either gender.]
* Disagreeing politically with most fans. Not even if someone\\\'s being bigoted against a large portion of the fanbase (such as homophobia for a work with a large LGBTFanbase). Any misconceptions from which this bigotry might arise is not a misconception about the work in question. [Kept to emphasize that the misconception has to be about the \\\'\\\'work\\\'\\\'.]
* Anything from the list of things that do qualify, if it\\\'s not common or severe enough to significantly bother fans of the work every time it comes up. Giving a reason why the misconception is so common is a good way to make sure your example doesn\\\'t fall into this (as well as avoiding being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample). [Maybe a bit redundant with the new trope name, but I think it\\\'s worth emphasizing.]
Thoughts?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would like to add that I still don\'t see Nancy\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \
to:
I would like to add that I still don\\\'t see Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes over and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\\\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \\\"every single girl that age is stupid\\\". This is the same show that has two middle school-aged girls as part of the main cast (Eleven and Max), and both of them are portrayed as intelligent and sympathetic characters. Rather, Nancy was reassuring Dustin that those girls at the ball were stupid for rejecting \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\'. Which, after the cold and mean way that they dumped him, I don\\\'t think it was unfair of Nancy to call those girls out on it.
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm isn\\\'t the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm isn\\\'t the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would like to add that I still don\'t see Nancy\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \
to:
I would like to add that I still don\\\'t see Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes over and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\\\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \\\"every single girl that age is stupid\\\". This is the same show that has two middle school-aged girls as part of the main cast (Eleven and Max), and both of them are portrayed as intelligent and sympathetic characters. Rather, Nancy was reassuring Dustin that those girls at the ball were stupid for rejecting \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\'. Which, after the cold and mean way that they dumped him, I don\\\'t think it was unfair of Nancy to call those girls out on it.
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would like to add that I still don\'t see Nancy\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \
to:
I would like to add that I still don\\\'t see Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes over and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\\\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \\\"every single girl that age is stupid\\\". This is the same show that has two middle school-aged girls as part of the main cast (Eleven and Max), and both of them are portrayed as intelligent and sympathetic characters. Rather, Nancy was reassuring Dustin that those girls at the ball were stupid for rejecting \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\'. Which, after the cold and mean way that they dumped him, I don\\\'t think it was unfair of Nancy to call those girls out on it.
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would like to add that I still don\'t see Nancy\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \
to:
I would like to add that I still dont see Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\\\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \\\"every single girl that age is stupid\\\". This is the same show that has two middle school-aged girls as part of the main cast (Eleven and Max), and both of them are portrayed as intelligent and sympathetic characters. Rather, Nancy was reassuring Dustin that those girls at the ball were stupid for rejecting \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\'. Which, after the cold and mean way that they dumped him, I don\\\'t think it was unfair of Nancy to call those girls out on it.
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would like to add that I still don\'t see Nancy\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \
to:
I would like to add that I still don\\\'t see Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\\\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \\\"every single girl that age is stupid\\\". This is the same show that has two middle school-aged girls as part of the main cast (Eleven and Max), and both of them are portrayed as intelligent and sympathetic characters. Rather, Nancy was reassuring Dustin that those girls at the ball were stupid for rejecting \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\'. Which, after the cold and mean way that they dumped him, I don\\\'t think it was unfair of Nancy to call those girls out on it.
Even if you do take Nancys comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Even if you do take Nancys comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would like to add that I still don\'t see Nancy\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \
to:
I would like to add that I still don\\\'t see Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\\\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \\\"every single girl that age is stupid\\\". This is the same show that has two middle school-aged girls as part of the main cast (Eleven and Max), and both of them are portrayed as intelligent and sympathetic characters. Rather, Nancy was reassuring Dustin that those girls at the ball were stupid for rejecting \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\'. Which, after the cold and mean way that they dumped him, I don\\\'t think it was unfair of Nancy to call those girls out on it.
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would like to add that I still don\'t see Nancy\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \
to:
I would like to add that I still don\\\'t see Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist. She sees Dustin, clearly heartbroken over his rejections, and she comes and cheers him up in the best way she knows how. I really don\\\'t think Nancy was trying to say that \\\"every single girl that age is stupid\\\". This is the same show that has two middle school-aged girls as part of the main cast (Eleven and Max), and both of them are portrayed as intelligent and sympathetic characters. Rather, Nancy was reassuring Dustin that those girls at the ball were stupid for rejecting \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\'. Which, after the cold and mean way that they dumped him, I don\\\'t think it was unfair of Nancy to call those girls out on it.
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
Even if you do take Nancy\\\'s comment as sexist, Narm is not the place to complain about characters making racist, sexist, offensive, etc. comments. Otherwise it just comes off as, well, [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]].
