Main Once Acceptable Targets Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

08:24:24 AM Jun 10th 2013
What about the Rroma? Hungary may be getting ready to do them some serious evil, but shouldn't they get some discussion here?
03:20:23 PM May 11th 2013
What's with the current page image? The one on the left is a black dude, but the one on the right just seems to be a generic clown or something. Am I missing that it's really supposed to be a gay guy or something? And if it really is a clown, I would argue that we can find a better page image.
02:30:45 AM May 12th 2013
I think that the black dude is supposed to now trigger a "wait, we're supposed to throw stuff at him just because he's black? that's awful" reaction. The other guy as a clown is still an acceptable target, but shows that they were once considered equal.
07:18:25 AM May 12th 2013
Once black people stopped being an acceptable target, the toy got Bowdlerized into a clown.
12:06:52 PM May 17th 2013
Larkmarn, this is a picture of two separate toys; it is a single item. If you look, the title is 'Twin Targets'.
01:22:05 AM May 22nd 2013
DAMN. I mean "this is NOT a picture of two separate toys".
06:25:13 AM May 22nd 2013
edited by
Huh, interesting. I guess my mind just assumed since it made a lot more sense.

Well, I defer to Telcontar... it still works since the clown is still an acceptable target, and it shows that the black person was as well.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. Man, I've been looking at it for years.
09:31:19 AM Oct 10th 2012
edited by jatay3
I presume the entry that says bastards could not legally own property in Elizabethan times means bastards could not legitimately own real estate or perhaps could not inherit lest some fool cut out his firstborn son and dump everything on someone no one ever heard of. Is someone actually claiming that they could not own personal effects? If so it would be nice to have source material.
03:02:36 PM Aug 13th 2012
While it's obvious that women were once acceptable targets, the write-up doesn't reflect that; it just lists examples of every time a mythological woman is ever portrayed as doing something wrong. Nothing to imply that it's a reflection on all women ever.

And besides, the implication is that portraying a woman as doing something dangerous is inherently sexist.
12:14:13 PM Sep 9th 2012
Indeed. Comment about women just handpicks few examples that happen to be easily interpretable as evil. Both bible and greek mythology have many examples of both good, exemplar women and vile men. Thus written reasoning is not really substantive.
01:49:44 AM Jan 26th 2011
Many of these do seem less like "unacceptable targets" and more like "we'd like these to be unacceptable targets even though they still unfortunately are." Many of these groups at best have had the form of targeting changed or watered down but it's certainly still out there and generally given a pass by society.
02:26:08 PM Jan 26th 2011
Exactly. I think the Once Acceptable Targets page is pretty much a waste of space.
12:21:01 PM Sep 9th 2012
I believe it's not meant to be unacceptable targets by society, but by media. And is unacceptable in media mainly beacuse it happens outside it.

Personally, I think that this article is useful for a few reasons.
07:27:47 PM Nov 26th 2010
Removed natter. Saved here in case it's Troper Tales material:
02:42:00 PM Apr 1st 2010
edited by
Allesindesoep: Once acceptable, always acceptable. I don't think there are any targets in here that you can't find in the acceptable targets groups, with perhaps the exception of blacks.
03:17:57 PM Aug 1st 2010
I disagree, I think it should change, and probably someday will.
02:19:52 AM Dec 12th 2010
On the whole, I think this page should be deleted. Every example of a Once Acceptable Target listed is essentially Still An Acceptable Target.

There's an entry for "Self Hating Americans", for goodness sake! The entry negates itself...
Collapse/Expand Topics