If we're removing Real Life examples, then why is Alan Colmes still there? Putting him in Live Action TV just hides the problem.
Either restore the section but leave one conservative and one liberal example, or eliminate the trope namer. Which when we had this argument about the trope name, picking a liberal-friendly name was not supposed to make this a party-specific trope.
On another note, this is supposed to be a media trope, not a fiction trope. The article is pretty much empty now that we're no longer supporting its original domain.
Hide / Show Replies
You might want to ask here
.
Folks on the Trope Repair Shop discussion didn't seem to feel like the trope needed renaming, but there was general consensus that the Real Life section could use some cleaning out. So, I removed most of the examples, following these rectally-derived principles:
- For media figures, I limited it to examples where some notable, named person held that figure up as an example of the trope. The only one that seemed to qualify, IMO, was Alan Colmes (since Al Franken mocked him for this in his book). All the others amounted to "In this troper's opinion..." (And in some cases, e.g. Juan Williams, it provoked a lot of un-troperly natter.)
- For politicians, none really seemed to make the cut. They were generally either (a) politicians who were on the moderate side of their party, and got criticized from the party's base, or (b) politicians who'd held mainstream-for-their-party's views in the past, and felt like their party had moved away from them. If that counts as this trope, this trope is going to have a lot of examples... I cut it down to just the observation that any moderate politician will be accused of this.
I added a comment suggesting that people follow the guideline that real life examples should only be included if you can point to a work of famous person who specifically holds that person up as an example. Does that seem fair?
Hide / Show Replies
Any pundit or politician that's often said to be a DINO or RINO? Since Franken was a pundit, and it's not just tropers who'd think these things but pundits do it as well, that actually leaves us with a notable degree of liberty in examples.
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
I think that pundits should arguably stay, but not politicians- because politicians who are liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats don't "exist to be proven wrong", which is an important part of the original Fox News Liberal definition (there might be some definition drift here). "DINO" and "RINO" politicians typically represent/come from constituencies who share those views, and when they are praised by the other party, it's more in terms of them being a "Token Good" example of the party.
Re the definition of the trope, I kind of think there is some definition drift. Colmes' notoriety was sort of as someone who was weak willed and there to be shouted down/proven wrong. Besides the weak willed part, I guess Pat Buchanan would probably be the closest MSNBC equivalent. But liberal Republicans who talk on MSNBC and conservative Democrats who talk on Fox wouldn't fit the trope (IMO) unless MSNBC was calling those Republicans conservatives and Fox was calling those Democrats liberals
Tl; dr, the original meaning of the trope has a lot to do with someone set up as purposely weak opposition (that was the accusation against Colmes), but shouldn't be applicable to someone looked at positively from the other side of the political spectrum. Now granted, I know that some of the fictional examples are about someone supposedly on the other side who always agrees with the opposite one, but I'd give more leeway to fiction, since fictional characters are actually created by an author to serve a purpose.
Edited by Jordan Hodor
Pat Buchanan? He got fired. Nah, MSNBC's own Colmes is definitely Joe Scarborough. Unlike Buchanan, he's weak and ineffectual in giving a conservative POV. Is also often seen by the right as more in his element criticizing conservatives than liberals. That also happens to be something Kirsten Powers is often accused of on the left.
Edited by doomsday524 He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
I think deleting all the real life examples might make sense... except that the only one left is Alan Colmes. Now I'm ok with the Trope Namer being here, but we picked this name (and don't have a separate trope for MSNBC Conservative) because it's supposed to be politically balanced. Can we get a right-wing equivalent?
David Brooks is primarily notable for appearing on left-wing outlets (reluctantly) supporting left-wing causes and condemning his "fellow" conservatives. Prior to his career as a professional republican, he had described himself as a social democrat (ie far left by American standards).
Another possibility, but not as good, is David Wiegel. Formerly the Washington Post's analyst for the conservative movement, he was outed in the Journ O List scandal as being secretly very left-wing and writing his column primarily to sabotage his own claimed movement.
We really only need one to balance out the Colmes reference. Failing that, I suppose we could separate the articles so there's one for MSNBC Conservative, but I don't see the difference being big enough to be worth it.
Cyclopsman
This page is kind of...well, wrong in many respects. This quote feels it sums up my entire position
From the newsroom example.
"The main character is Will Mc Avoy, a conservative news anchor who repeatedly criticizes the current state of the Republican Party. In the first few episodes of the show he mocks Sarah Palin and rails against the Tea Party."
Yeah, see, a lot, A LOT of Republicans are fed up with the current state of the Republican party. A lot of republicans absolutely hated Sarah Palin for being completely incompetent. And a lot of Republicans don't like the Tea Party, if not only because they somehow manage to always make themselves look like morons and hypocrites.
I could explain for paragraphs on why a good percentage of republican aligned Americans are absolutely sick of the current republican party. I won't for the sake of brevity, but just because you aren't happy with the current leadership of your party, it doesn't mean you still don't represent that parties viewpoint.
This is also a good one, from the west wing example.
"Arnold Vinick, the Republican presidential nominee in the final season, is so moderate that the real-life Republican party would probably never accept him. He's pro-choice, not at all religious, and in much of the U.S., would be considered closer to a Democrat than a Republican. Since he's from California, however, it makes sense."
If you do a quick google search, you will find many, many, MANY republicans who are atheists, agnostic or non-religious.
After reading this article a few times, i honestly believe its only purpose to bash republicans. The title is a good hint too.
Honestly, it bothers me that sexual assault and rape tropes got deleted on account that they "might" be offensive, and yet something so blatantly offensive and misleading doesn't even get touched.
...not sure what to put here, really. Hide / Show Replies
It is a wildly misleading article, particularly in how it paints the Republican stance on social issues over the years. According to polls, 25% of Republicans are fully pro-choice, while another 30% or so accept that abortion is necessary under many circumstances despite having moral issues with it; only about 28% are staunchly pro-life. Abortion, gay rights, religion, even entitlement spending—it has only been relatively recently that the Republican Party has come to "officially" stand against these things.
There is a vast chasm between the modern definition of "mainstream conservatism" and the definition of that term from the time of the first President Bush, let alone the Nixon- or Eisenhower-era definition of that term.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.
The reason this trope gets away with it because it's supposed to be about what's basically a variant of Strawman Political on a relatively far-left/far-right outlet that tries to, and fails to argue their point.
I think you're forgetting that the party as a whole, and thus the news networks, tend to be further left/right than the people. At least nowadays. Do I think Fox News represents the Republican party as a whole? Do I think the Tea Partiers? Hell no.
However, the big spenders on campaigns tend to be fairly far to the left or the right. As such, the silent majority stays... silent. Thus a little irrelevant to this trope. Maybe the description should mention that to some extent because it is prone to misuse to bash the opposite party, and legitimate examples can seem offensive to the moderate majority.
That said, I do agree that the page does have a liberal bias, but that's a little impossible to avoid since most of the entertainment industry does.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
This and the equivalent strike me as way too close to a No True Scotsman fallacy. Hence all the RINO/DINO back and forth and if other tropes were deemed Flame Bait for less, it's a little bizarre than this one remains, especially when it's close to a logical fallacy, if not one already.
Non-examples:
The Real Life section is being filled up with things that fit the issue of the DINO and GINO that don't have anything to do with the Fox News Liberal deal. If a Fox News Liberal is a guy you get to represent the other side reasonably but doesn't stick to the actual ideals of the other side well then having a guy on your side who isn't that much of an example of your side doesn't fit the page. It doesn't do us a service to have half the page be on a Real Life section that's overinflated by people just spelling out the political views of people who aren't exact clones of their peers. By the end of the list, I think people have fotgotten what the trope actually is.
Hide / Show Replies
What's a GINO? You mean RINO. That's the word for Republican in Name Only.
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
Maybe we need to just remove the real life examples, most of them don't even fit the trope and its just asking for opinionated tropers from both sides of the aisle to soap box.
How about a different name for the topic that isn't so partisan? Because you could just as accurately name is "MSNBC Conservative"
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah, I agree—and a lot of the examples go that way, too. (e.g. the West Wing example of the nice, moderate Republican.) And you could have examples that aren't political at all—e.g. in religious novels, there can be a tame atheist who mainly agrees about how the other atheists aren't thinking things through (and who probably ends up converting).
Maybe change it to something like "Opposition Mascot"?
Seriously, the trope name implies that this is something conservatives do to liberals exclusively.
Perhaps "Fake Token Opposition"? "Representative of the Strawman Party"?
I agree, and like the name "Fake Token Opposition".
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
Funny you should mention "MSNBC Conservative", I was actually gonna suggest "Comedy Central Conservative".
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
I was thinking of adding a real life example along the lines of:
- In areas dominated by one party, strong and successful candidates from the opposition are likely to seem this way from the outside. For example, in New York City you can only be so conservative and still get elected, as Mayor Rudolph Giuliani discovered when he tried to run for president as a Republican in 2008.
Take out the bit about Giuliani? Is the whole thing redundant?
Edited by HersheleOstropoler The child is father to the man —Oedipus
A quibble about the Icon example in the comics section: Although Icon and his sidekick Rocket had opposing political views, neither was ever shown as comprehensively wrong or right. In fact, the liberal Rocket explicitly referred to Icon as the 'embodiment of the African-American experience.'
On issues of race, especially, Icon was criticised by several characters for his conservatism, saying he was "acting white". In those situations, the character always defended himself and his beliefs robustly, often pointing out that he had actually been black since before they'd been born.
Hide / Show Replies
In fact, Icon had been black in times when black people were much more oppressed, if any Misery Poker was to be played.
'M not Crazy, just Raven
From the page:
- Family Guy mocked this, as examined here.
Can somebody turn this into an example? (Hint to the original author: If a hypothetical page-reader has to leave this trope page to understand what's being talked about, you're not explaining it well enough)
Now Bloggier than ever before!
Some suggestions for an alternative name:
Straw Moderate Opposition In Name Only
White Hindu
I'm not sure why Christopher Hitchens is here. Did he ever claim to be Liberal? Because it's not mentioned in this article. In fact, it seems to imply that Atheists cannot hold conservative views, which, I think, makes little sense. I don't exactly see how one's belief or disbelief in a God would influence one's opinions on the Iraq war or similar issues.
"What's out there? What's waiting for me?" Hide / Show Replies
He's been identified as a liberal, though I doubt he'd consider himself one. It's moot point though- unless he was the token liberal in a debate about the moral efficacy of the Iraq War he's not this trope.
Blech, this page is a mess anyway. Let me fix it up a bit. Anyone feel free to bring back deleted examples if you can bring them up to code.
See you in the discussion pages.
It may be unfair to argue that only agnosticism is "authentic."
While atheists may agree that the question of God is not answerable on an evidenciary basis, they would argue that from an empirical perspective, there is no reason to believe that something exists (or even to believe that there is a significant chance that it does) for which there is no evidence. Some atheists would compare belief in God to belief in invisible, intangible pink unicorns living in Antarctica. You may never have been to Antarctica, and even if you have, you wouldn't have seen them or noticed their presence, so you can't falsify their existence. That does not mean, however, that it is "inauthentic" to disbelieve in them.
Similarly, theism is not inauthentic either. People genuinely believe in deities for a variety of spiritual, personal, emotional, or logical reasons. To imply that all of them are secretly uncertain seems unfair.
Happy New Year!
"Practically every human who sides with the Na'vi in James Cameron's Avatar"
Is Avatar really an example? There's no 'balance', it's clear cut pro-na'vi=good, anti-na'vi=evil. RDA isn't a part of a real world political group (although there are clear parables) it's a mining company, Being human isn't a political identity.
Edited by joeyjojo hashtagsarestupid Hide / Show Replies
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Ambiguous Name
, started by Narsil on Mar 30th 2012 at 11:06:58 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman