Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Misused
, started by MercuryPenny1 on Jul 30th 2015 at 10:13:47 PM
I sincerely think Sonichu (and Chris-chan, but that's a whole other can of worms) should be on this page. Just read Sonichu, and you'll know exactly why.
Edited by Zierin705
Folks, be on the lookout. I removed a non-example of this trope from Series/MASH, where a troper with a hate-on for Hawkeye listed an action the troper disagreed with as an example of ISL. Obviously, just because you don't agree with someone's logic doesn't make it this trope. So you might keep this in mind and weed out such non-examples where you find them.
I'm not sure if the example under 'Advertising' about moisturising soap really fits. The rest of the page seems to be about intentional flawed logic and the moisturising soap example doesn't give enough context to tell if it was intentional or not.
EDIT: Chick Tracts have a similar problem, as they don't seem to be a parody.
Edited by 72.14.178.184
Deleted this line:
- He also spontaneously "tricks" the Man in Black into looking away for a moment so he can switch glasses, which he delightfully laughs about afterwards despite having no reason to believe it would help.
I don't think it's an example because there actually WAS legitimate logic behind this. Vizzini believed the Man in Black wouldn't want to drink the poisoned cup. By switching the cups around, it allowed him to gauge the Man in Black's reaction. Since the Man in Black didn't hesitate, that told Vizzini that the cup he thought he was drinking out of (which Vizzini now had, due to the switch) was safe. His logic here was sound, he just failed to anticipate the Man in Black's immunity to the poison.
I need help understanding the Shortpacked! (Insane Troll Logic page image) example because I don't get it.
Hide / Show Replies
The "camel" stuff is Insane Troll Logic. That's the issue.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
How come there's no "Playing with a Trope" for Insane Troll Logic?
Edited by 125.231.84.116 Hide / Show Replies
Are Joe McCarthy's communism accusations an example of Insane Troll Logic?
Edited by 125.231.84.116
…マジで？
Apparently someone confused the "Not a Wiki Word" markup for the "Internal Link" markup.
Edited by 175.196.224.232 Give the God Eater game thread some love! Hide / Show Replies
Yeah. I think it was a botched find-and-replace function. Thanks for fixing it up!
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Deleted this one, as it's a Real Life example:
- Conservapedia runs on this trope. They believe for instance that facebook is a dirty liberal website and therefore The Social Network was a liberal film and the fact that it lost to the conservative film, The Kings Speech was a good thing but also a bad thing because it meant that Sarah Palin couldn't become President because she is an avid facebook user despite the fact that she is a Republican and according to them facebook is liberal. Furthermore, The King's Speech was a conservative film because of its traditional family values despite the fact that it is set in Britain which Conservapedia considers to be the seat of atheism, liberalism and bad maths skills even though its head of State is the Queen who is also head of the Anglican Church thereby making Great Britain a Christian nation and is also run by a Conservative Party. You try working it out. As further explained on the Poe's Law page, Conservapedia is so overrun with actual trolls that it's kind of doubtful any actual conservatives still edit it.
Sorcerer in training
Would this Not Always Working be admissible under Web Original, or would it count as a Real Life example?
http://notalwaysworking.com/the-managers-logic-is-a-bit-spotty/29944
Summary: Manager says because calcium-deposit spots were not documented with the old cleaner (because they didn't happen), that means that it can not be proven that the new cleaner is responsible for the now-occurring calcium-deposit spots that are occurring and have been documented and complained about.
Edited by 69.172.221.6 Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Sorcerer in training
I cleaned up the Gatchaman entry. I submitted it early in my tropes days, it's my responsibility to do so. If there are any recommendations to improve it, please PM me; I might not make it back to this discussion page for a while, but it's hard to ignore the PM alert.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Cut this example:
- * Similarly, in The Merchant Of Venice, we have Launcelot Gobbo telling Jessica, who just converted from Judaism to Christianity for the sake of her husband Lorenzo, that Lorenzo is a bad member of society because converting Jews raises the price of pork.
most of the examples are simple logical fallacies, and include an example of why they are wrong. doesn't really fit?
The ITL is saying that raising the price of pork makes you a terrible person.
I'm a Troper!!!
A good example, I think:
"Some people appear to think, and thus argue, in terms of attitudes rather than facts. As such, in an argument, they will often jump from arguing one claim, to a seemingly unrelated claim, which in their mind is not unrelated - rather, those claims are related because they could both be used to support a general "attitude" statement, which the person assumes the argument is really about. For example, Alice accuses Bob's brother Dave of dishonestly selling her a car with serious mechanical problems, and Bob responds by extolling Dave's generous volunteering in the community, on the assumption that what Alice is trying to say is that Dave is a bad person generally. Assuming Alice doesn't think that way and isn't familiar with the thought processes and assumptions underlying this behavior, she is likely to interpret this as "insane troll logic." Sheldon, who does understand those thought processes and assumptions but, like Alice, doesn't think that way, is likely to agree."
Too vague? Suggestions on phrasing? More examples? Pothole suggestions?
Hide / Show Replies
I think the "real life" section is badly out of control. It has been severely cleaned up at least once (and probably more, although I haven't been following), yet it's now even worse than it was before the last cleanup.
(I happen to know this because that cleanup removed one example I had added. As it was admittedly borderline, I agreed with the editor who removed it alongside a big bunch of other examples, and let it be. When I read the section now, it's filled with even worse examples than many that were before that cleanup, such as personal anecdotes and things that do not really fit the trope.)
As much I would hate the "real life" section go, perhaps it would nevertheless be a good idea to classify it under "no real life examples, please"?
Hide / Show Replies
That's a shame. Could we make a separate section for academia to include the Sokal affair?
Should it be mentioned that a major reason for people hating the song for Haiti is that Bieber is in them, therefore they should be erased from existance? (My friends are like that.)
Hide / Show Replies
But that's actually solid logic:
1. Anything with Bieber in it needs to be destroyed 2. The song has Bieber in it. 3. Therefore, the song needs to be destroyed.
You might not agree, but the logic is sound.
Insane Troll Logic would be:
1. I like fish sticks 2. Therefore, the song needs to be destroyed.
Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!
the One Man Riot
I recommend a rename of the trope. Typically, only satirical trolls operate like this as a rhetorical tool to baffle targets into submission. Most trolls of the non-satirical variety do nothing of the sort. As such this article is just one of many spreading absurd anti-troll propaganda.
"Do what thou wilst shalt be the whole of the law." ~ Aleister Crowley Hide / Show Replies
The article clarifies early on that it isn't talking about that kind of troll.
Are the items in Real Life that basically say "all religion is ITL" really necessary? Most of the smartest people that ever lived were religious, including the two most influential founders of logical reasoning: Aristotle and Francis Bacon. Comparing Christianity to things like the witch test from Monty Python and the Holy Grail is absurd. These posts seem like either trolling or proselytizing, and I would hate to see this trope page turn into a 4chan atheism debate thread.
Hide / Show Replies
Certain specific arguments relating to religion can still be put under this trope, such as Leonhard Euler's and Harold Camping's bizarre mathematical proofs. But if someone tries to put a "religion/atheism/other worldview in general is ITL" spin on things, or otherwise comes across as overly spiteful, feel free to delete it.
Happy New Year!
"Stereotypes are usually true, that's how they become stereotypes in the first place." The stereotype in question was "gay men are usually weaker than straight men, lesbians are usually stronger than straight women".
As much as I hate to defence FATAL their logic isn't faulty here. Stereotypes normally have basis in reality.
hashtagsarestupid Hide / Show Replies
No they don't. Some bigot sprayed that crap out and since bigots run in packs, there are a few of them that will repeat it. No facts involved.
Edited by FastEddie Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
As long as you're going to have that attitude Fast Eddie, you only give bigotry it's strength.
It'd be nice to elaborate on that and say that an outright refusal to acknowledge even the facts that stereotypes misinterpret as categorically true gives the impression that those who deny the truth of a stereotype are just being politically correct. The logic in question here is not an example of insane troll logic because there is an actual logical connection; however, the logic IS faulty. A stereotype is simply a widely held conception about all members of a category, which, of course, can have any number of origins. The original quote wrongfully asserts that the only possible origin is a true typical characteristic and ignores the ease with which people can develop misconceptions, especially with anecdotal evidence or an insufficient sample size. Specifically to this case, the "ounce of truth" is basically testosterone; gay men are assumed to be low on testosterone and lesbian women are assumed to be higher on testosterone. This is simply not the case.
^ So basically, faulty logic doesn't automatically equal Insane Troll Logic, right?
It might be the original use of the phrase but examples need to be examples — if this isn't one it shouldn't be listed as such. If it is an example it needs to be fixed up to show how it is, we're not discussing Sadistic Choice on this page.
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer:
- In an instance of literal insane troll logic Xander is talking to an actual troll. It's not this page's type of Insane Troll Logic though, more of a Sadistic Choice (Xander is "rewarded" by the troll in that he is allowed to let either Anya or Willow live, when the troll was originally planning to kill them both).
I know this is a dick move but I want to add on the Live TV sub-page of Star Trek in general where a lot of mind-based species like the Vulcan, their less insane but more violent cousins Romulans, the Cardassians and early DS 9 Klingons were suffering from Insane Troll Logic when they hammered in MORE of their Planetof Hats stereotypes. Trek is such a Broken Base that it would need to go to International TV-Court to understand why this universe is stupidity-mutated!
When an idea is formed and practiced, learn NOT from the creators but the reputation the public invest in. Website fine, idiot admins bad!