Discussion Film / DearWhitePeople

This is all based on your opinion of the term racist. Based on past discussion, it's starting to suspiciously look like an agenda.

Following the own example, she uses the term as "system of disadvantage based in race" and not "racial hatred" or "racial prejudice". Using her own definition, no, she not counts as racist.

Screw it. Not worth the effort.

I concur. :)

Just because the movie is satirical doesn't mean every character is supposed to be seen as hypocritical. Plus, calling the idea "Racism is only against POC" Insane Troll Logic is getting into really Flame Bait territory. That's the problem with troping a movie that's so politically charged.

Not every character. Just the ones that are hypocritical.

It is Insane Troll Logic though. It's not intended to instigate an argument, merely describing Sam's "logic" for what it is.

Full disclosure: I haven't seen the movie and am going by this page.

The "Dear White People" rants seem like they're supposed to be Political Correctness Gone Mad, and that her logic is intentionally flawed. The fact that that is a point of debate in real life (and it most certainly is) is irrelevant... if it's supposed to be ITL in the movie, then it is.

The definition of racism in the Hypocrite section is the definition of 'systematic racism.' Wouldn't it make sense to simply put this topic under YMMV?

Hypocrite is not YMMV, so you can't do that.

And it's been deleted again

I wonder if that qualifies as edit warring

Not sure. Might want to PM the removing editor.

For the record, I'm not 100% convinced we've resolved this, but removing the entry is absolutely incorrect. Considering none of the deleters bother coming to state their case here, Eagal's restorations don't really count as an edit-war.

Now Zemedelphos needs to join the conversation

I don't think it's Insane Troll Logic. The character just uses a different definition of "racism" compared to those who accuse her of being racist. According to Wikipedia at least, there are several definitions of the term out there; one of these sounds similar to the one the character uses (the movie probably satirizes that position).

Hypothetically, using a different definition wouldn't make it not Insane Troll Logic.

Racism: Noun: Preference for Darjeeling over Oolong.

^ As far as I understand, though, that definition wasn't invented by the character, but is rather a preexisting definition that's shared by some people in Real Life. I don't think we can call Real Life political positions Insane Troll Logic.

^ As someone who lives in Washington DC, we absolutely, 2000% can.

But I digress. Our opinions on the subject don't matter. What matters is whether the work points out whether her logic makes no sense.

Insane Troll Logic definitions existing previous to their use in a particular context does not make them not Insane Troll Logic.

Re: If you prefer Darjeeling tea over Oolong tea, then you are racist. This definition predates this comment, and it is one used by a person in real life, e.g. me. Is my definition of racism is therefore valid?

Dean All State Guy called Sam out, to which she responded with the given argument. He did not respond, presumably because his brain was leaking out of his ears at the time. Dean All State Guy seems like a pretty sharp individual. If Sam's "logic" warranted a response, I imagine he could have scrounged something up.

Given the writers' professed satirical intent, I would venture to suggest that Sam's logic is indeed intended to be wrong, using irony or whatever to expose her vice and such-like.

... do we need a lock for this page?

I vote yes.

Some things I think it would be good to point out about some of the problems discussed here: Almost the exact same comment appears three times, twice on the main page and once on the YMMV page (Aluminum Christmas Trees, Hypocrite, and Misaimed Fandom). All three have very similar wording and contain a link to Insane Troll Logic. I know that Tv Tropes is somewhat prone to redundancy but given the debate over the topic, I feel that it's just a bit too much. But I digress.

Secondly, I feel like some of the wording is misleading. From Aluminum Christmas Trees: "Sam's argument...is clearly meant to be taken as absurd." If it really was that clear there probably wouldn't be an edit war over it.

Finally, while there's all this discussion of what makes something troll logic or not troll logic or not not troll logic or... the argument used doesn't seem to fit the trope, in my opinion: "Insane Troll Logic is the kind of logic that just can't be argued with because it's so demented, so lost in its own insanity, that any attempts to make it rational would make it more incomprehensible." Now obviously my opinion is not objective by any means, but even if Sam's logic was meant to be wrong, it doesn't seem to go so far as insane troll logic, and linking it would really only make sense on the ymmv page.

Now that's just my two cents on the whole matter and i'm not that experienced at defining tropes so take it with a grain of salt.

Hypocrite is not a YMMV trope—it shouldn't reflect audience interpretation of a character. The question is: is the INTENT thst the character is a hypocrite?

And according to the director himself, the answer is no. The point, according to Simien, was to explain why racism isn't just about overt actions or feelings. It's about a system, and said system ultimately defines what racism is and isn't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/dear-white-people/justin-simien-director-interview/

The article outright describes Sam's argument as a subtle example of racism.

Where?

I don't think my "Wrong Insult Offense" entry should have been removed. When accused of being racist, Sam says "Black people can't be racist. Prejudiced, sure, but not racist, because they don't have power to do anything with their prejudice". By saying that and then not arguing that she isn't prejudiced either, she is tacitly admitting that she is prejudiced and is only denying that her prejudice qualifies as racism.

And at the very least, whether it's a tacit admission or not, the fact that her response to the accusation is to split hairs on definitions rather than defend herself is basically the definition of Wrong Insult Offense.

That's your interpretation. The director did not see it that way, nor do many PO Cs.

At the very least, it fails Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment because the director was trying to make a charged political statement about systematic oppression and that trope basically amounts to "lol nope".

It's not an interpretation. She was accused of being one thing, her only response was to say the wrong word was used. That's Wrong Insult Offense. Maybe the wording needs to be revised, but that trope was used here.

No that's an interpretation, because the director intended for her to be right. There isn't a trope being used to make her look wrong on any level, so saying it's Wrong Insult Offense is just your (or the audience's) reaction to it, not what was intended.

If that's true then the page for The Room needs some serious cleaning up, because a lot of the tropes on that page definitely weren't intentional on Tommy Wiseau's part. Just because the writer had a different intention doesn't mean it invalidates something that fits the exact definition of a trope.

Then I'd say yes, that page needs serious cleaning.

The point is that any example can fit a trope definition if it fits the opinion of the troper. That's the entire reason many of them were made YMMV.

It's not opinion, and the author's intent doesn't override the definition of the trope. If a writer were to state that his story is so original it's devoid of any tropes at all, that does not mean we're required to leave the page devoid of examples because it was the writer's intention that none of them apply. If a writer were to say that their Yandere supporting character is a Tsundere despite the character's actual behavior and thoughts saying otherwise, we would not list them as a Tsundere except via reference to Word of God. It's the same thing here.

But Wrong Insult Offence is specifically about a character who, as you said, is "splitting hairs". If she isn't splitting hairs by the story's definition, then it's up to audience interpretation. Which, again given the political nature of the trope, is YMMV.

Her opinion is a real life point of debate between two sides with reasonable points. It's disingenuous for us to decide the character is wrong because WE don't agree with it.

Either a trope is being used or it isn't. If it's an actual point that real life people contend, we don't add it, as per Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment.

You completely ignored my point. Why should the writer's definition override the actual trope's definition for the site? Is that really our actual policy? Where does it say that on the site? Would the two examples I listed in my previous message actually be put into practice? And if so, why do we bother defining tropes at all if the writer's personal opinion takes precedence?

This is the definition of "Wrong Insult Offence" according to the trope page:

"A Wrong Insult Offence occurs when one character attempts to insult another and hurls what they think is an appropriate insult in the other character's face. The second character considers this and then calmly replies, listing all the reasons why that particular insult does not apply to them and helpfully suggesting a more appropriate insult they could use."

Every single part of that definition is met, and nowhere is anything said about writer intention being a necessary part of it.

I didn't ignore your point. Let's go back to your original argument. "By saying that and then not arguing that she isn't prejudiced either, she is tacitly admitting that she is prejudiced and is only denying that her prejudice qualifies as racism."

She isn't admitting anything. She, in fact, refers to her show as a "counter-culture" movement. The idea that she's "tacitly" admitting anything is a false one. She denied that her show was racist and said that "black people" (not herself specifically, but black people in general) can be prejudiced, but not racist. The reason "writer intention" is important here is because either there's a trope or there isn't.

However, reading the interview from the director, he states that both the Dean and Sam are meant to have good points in that argument. He doesn't say which points they're supposed to be right about, so I think we can apply it in broad strokes.

I can offer a compromise with something like:

Wrong Insult Offence: Played with when Dean Fairbanks calls Sam's show racist, she states that black people "cannot be racist", because racism is tied into power dynamics. She says that a black person can be prejudiced, but she never calls herself or her show this either. Director Justin Simien, however, has said that he feels both of them had a point, so the trope is zig-zagged and left for interpretation.

Even if that were true, which again your article does not support, that kinda goes out the window when describing an existing work that very plainly is not about what she believes it is about, e.g. Gremlins being about how white people are afraid of black people.

No it doesn't. That's external interpretation. If the story itself doesn't overtly call out her opinion on being wrong, it's not this trope.

The director has said his intention was to make Sam's position valid, and to make most of the characters have a good point.

Story doesn't need to call her opinion wrong if it is so on its face.

If she had said "Eating babies is the greatest thing ever" and no one challenged her on it, would she be right?

And your external interpretation of the director's words seems to run contrary to what he actually said.

But it's NOT wrong "on its face". It's interpretation of a film, via looking at it with a social lens. The story doesn't call it wrong, and a cursory glance at Google shows that a lot of people agree with the message.

The director said nothing to indicate that her point is wrong. He never stated that she was right (that was my mistake), but he made it clear he wanted her views to have a good point to them.

Just one final note before I am done. I apologize that I read your post too quickly and missed a point. What I should have said was...

"This would be like if someone added a character that hated Black Lives Matter, Feminist Frequency, and supported Trump to the Evil Reactionary page because they're vocal about it, even if the story paints them as valid."

If a character says that people who believe in black lives matter are racist, and calls the people behind Feminist Frequency sexist, and says people who hate Trump are racist then the character would fall under Everything Is Racist. It is about a character who has a history of reacting to things and labeling them as prejudiced. It is not about the character being right or wrong as you seem to be insisting. Regardless of if the director declares that the character is one hundred percent right or completely satirically wrong doesn't matter. It isn't the point of the trope. The character's shown reaction is the trope.

But all in all we are arguing in circles and I see no real point to continuing this. Good evening and I wish you well.