What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/UnfortunateImplications

MGD108
topic
01:55:57 PM Apr 21st 2014
Not sure if the final example of the Big Bang in relation to its treatment of Homosexuality really counts. And if it does it needs rewriting. The show makes it very clear that Sheldon isn't attracted to Women per say (before meeting her he rejects multiple women, and a few men) he merely bounds with her out of a similar mind set. Further more it makes it sound like he immediately transformed into a stereotypical person as soon as she was introduced. In reality they started off more or less close friends, before slowly growing closer, for a long time they were dating in name only. Also he clearly has no real sexual attraction towards her, instantly rejecting any suggestions of having it with her. It wasn't till three years after she was introduced that he even kissed her for the first time. As such I don't think it really counts.
MagBas
07:57:28 PM Apr 21st 2014
The example has citation.
MGD108
04:23:01 AM Apr 22nd 2014
edited by 86.143.223.159
But its incorrect. Shouldn't there be some examination into what these citations says and if its true or not? I mean doesn't it having citation, simply prove that somewhere someone complained about it. That doesn't really mean much, there are millions of sites on this internet complaining about things the people don't understand or watch.
Larkmarn
08:07:12 AM Apr 22nd 2014
Your complaints don't conflict with the entry as written. The entry does specifically say that he was pretty much asexual, then he gets a love interest to avoid rumors that the character is gay. Whether it was done well or gradually is irrelevant to the Unfortunate Implications.
MGD108
12:57:11 PM Apr 22nd 2014
Well can they at least rewrite the section, so it doesn't give the wrong implication.

Also is there really any proof of that being the reason? He had previously rejected men as well as women, and it was specifically stated he wasn't gay.
KuroKokoro
topic
09:10:09 AM Mar 21st 2014
I want to add something about Humon's comics (which are infamous for this trope), but I can't find a good citation.
supernintendo128
topic
04:09:29 PM Feb 19th 2014
Do those stupid Nerf Rebel commercials count? They imply that girls should use pink bow and arrows instead of dart guns because those are too manly for them.
blue2501
topic
06:07:53 PM Feb 10th 2014
I'm new here, so I don't want to be messing with the page itself, but I feel like a certain candy deserves a mention here.

I'm talking about 'Vigroids' licorice lozenges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigroids) which were, until 2010, called 'Nigroids.'

Hodor
topic
03:04:14 PM Dec 18th 2013
edited by 71.57.52.184
Don't think that Legend of Korra example should have been deleted (although I'm not sure it has the best citations.

Eska is not the only female character who displays an irrationally angry reaction to a breakup:

As one of the links provided noted, there's comments about Lin's displeased reaction when Tenzen dumped her (including destroying a temple and trying to arrest Pemma, the "other woman"). Also, Varrick comments on buying a speed boat for the purpose of outrunning angry ex-girlfriends.

You could probably also add Korra's throwing a desk at Mako and how (although it improves through Character Development) both Korra and Katara (when younger) have a personality trait of reacting with irrational anger and violence to situations- given all of the evil waterbenders, it may be that people in the Water Tribe (male and female alike) are crazy.

Now as for the second point, I'm not sure if those tumblr posts were written before or after the end of the season, as Mako's... behavior does get called out (I suppose it would still count for his behavior being Easily Forgiven even though it wasn't ultimately Ignored)
Eagal
11:39:39 AM Dec 31st 2013
edited by 71.97.59.41
Edit: This time I actually read the comment instead of skimming it. >_>

Ignore this!
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
04:54:07 AM Sep 28th 2013
Citation Needed. Also, general examples like these are discouraged.
  • A vast amount of villains in comics suffer from mental illness, despite the fact that in reality, mnetally ill are only connected to 4% of violent crimes, and are 11x as likely to be subjected to them. That's right, contrary to what media tells you sane people are enormously more dangerous to insane people than the reverse.
CodenameBravo
09:13:13 PM Sep 28th 2013
edited by 94.234.170.123
I inserted 2 citations, so it should be okay now. This really is a massive ongoing problem, enormously more severe even than, for example, the page image.

For just one example among thousands, according to a Larry Hama Wolverine comic, not only are mentally ill serial killers, they should be eaten alive by actual Wolverines.
Jarkes
topic
02:17:43 PM Sep 23rd 2013
On the subject of Terra:

Terra was a psychopath in the original story. She actively went along with Slade's plan to betray and try to kill the Titans, and she admitted that she enjoyed doing it. Yet the guy who was talking about those alleged Unforutnate Implications seems to be intent on absolving her of any blame for what were ultimately her own actions. It comes across as, "Slade MADE her do it, it wasn't her fault!" Basically, it sounds like an attempt at the Draco in Leather Pants thing.
MagBas
02:23:27 PM Sep 28th 2013
If i am remembering of the example in question, this has a citation, right?
Jarkes
10:28:17 AM Sep 29th 2013
It did, but the citation also felt like it was ignoring Terra's part in the plan simply because she was a teenage girl.
RevolutionStone
topic
04:35:26 PM Sep 4th 2013
Needing stuff to cite to add a trope. I want to add Chickification and Wimpification and their pages specify quite well the problems with both tropes, but I know you can't cite trope page itself. Basically I need to know what to google to find my cite for "female characters can't REALLY be anything but stereotypical housewives/victims/etc" and "real men aren't penetrated/penetration takes away manhood" and the one they share of "someone has to be an emotionally damaged, broken stereotype to be attractive and ready for relationships/sex." Both tropes belong here for obvious reasons, but I have no idea what to search to find an official document stating those implications and countering them.

Thanks~
LogoP
topic
11:40:28 AM Aug 22nd 2013
The "Citations Needed" rule applies only to this page or to every YMMV page on the wiki?
SeptimusHeap
moderator
11:55:53 AM Aug 22nd 2013
The TRS discussion was purely about the on-page examples.
Wereboar
topic
12:24:58 PM Jun 20th 2013
The Tolkien's examples either Comically Miss the Point or are blatant cases of Did Not Do The Research, so to speak.

1. Racism is a irrational animosity to people (humans) of a different race of discrimination based solely on the ethnicity and thus it applies to humans only. Orcs are not like any sentient race, they are monsters of rather unknown origin (reproduction of orcs is an open question). The actual racism exists in Lot R (Tall Human prejudice against the Hobbits) and is promptly criticized. In very hilarious take, people who associate monstrous Orcs with Mongols or Asians and not with, say, firbolgs, bogeymen or Frankenstein's monster may display their own suppressed racist tendencies. Especially that Tolkien himself was openly cross with racial segregation and racism in general.

2. The association of Dwarves with Jews is much more complex than one might suppose. Tolkien's Dwarves are a amalgam of Biblical Hebrews (fierce, independent, longing for the lost kingdom, holding to very old traditions and customs, proud of their history and ancestry) and Norse dwarves (living underground, skilled craftsmen, having penchant for riches). This representation is also pretty devoid of Unfortunate Implications, because there are no Dwarven antagonists and all their traits are fairly positive.

3. The feminist take is particularly weak, because Tolkien based his books on the high medieval poems and sagas, and thus his fantasy world reflects more or less the millieu of the Norse and Old English mythology and literature, where men were indeed portrayed 'movers and shakers of the world'. No Unfortunate Implications here - it's not even the Tolkien's agenda, it is deliberate use of the material he knew best due to his profession. Sure, one might consider Tolkien's works a bit stale, but please bear in mind that we are speaking of the books written 70 years ago by a man born in Victorian era, no wonder they do not meet eye to eye with modern ideology.
azraelfinalstar
12:05:13 AM Aug 10th 2013
While I entirely agree with you on all points, if those complaints are properly sourced, they still qualify for inclusion on this page.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
12:45:26 PM Jun 12th 2013
Even if "parodied", this still needs a Citation.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
01:48:10 AM Jun 1st 2013
Citation Needed
Redhead64
topic
05:44:47 AM May 4th 2013
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
11:24:54 AM Apr 22nd 2013
Tucked on the Taylor Swift examples, Citation Needed:
  • Not to mention in "You Belong With Me" she puts down the wearing of short skirts and high heels compared to t-shirts and sneakers (let's ignore that you can wear a t-shirt WITH a short skirt, and wearing just a t-shirt, as some do, is potentially more revealing than wearing a short-skirt.
  • In the song "Picture to Burn", she tells the boy she's breaking up with that she'll tell all her friends that he's gay as part of her revenge against him.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
07:31:04 AM Apr 20th 2013
Citation Needed:
  • Many a Lifetime Movie of the Week featuring women being beaten to near-death have been repeated over and over and over and over again on the eponymous television network. The one Movie of the Week that Lifetime produced that dealt with a male victim of Domestic Abuse, Men Don't Tell, was only ever broadcast one time in 1993, and was never once rebroadcast after that time. At least one expert in Domestic Abuse counseling discussed this disparity and pointed out exactly what message this was sending in an article in Psychology Today.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
10:48:14 AM Apr 19th 2013
Citation Needed:
  • One of the biggest causes of Internet Backdraft was Kori's line in the first issue of Red Hood and the Outlaws where she says that she doesn't remember anything about her former time with the Titans and doesn't recognize the names of her former teammates (including Dick Grayson, to whom she was engaged), which many readers took to mean that she has the memory of a goldfish and made the idea that she could consent pretty dubious. Later on it's shown that she was faking it, but even that doesn't come across as mentally healthy. Add to that the fact that Roy thought she really was amnesiac at the time and still had sex with her and he doesn't come out looking good either.
    • In general, Starfire's character, especially the way her nonemotional promiscuity has been depicted. There are ways to portray a tired, lonely, emotionally defeated young woman seeking comfort through anonymous hookups, and this is not one of them.
    • The second issue also featured a stewardess (the same one from A Death In The Family, incidentally) who flirts with Jason by leaning over his seat and gives him her number. When Lobdell was criticized over the fact that this was extremely unprofessional behavior on her part his response was that something similar had happened to him with a stewardess.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
12:29:16 PM Apr 9th 2013
Citation Needed, and the citation that was there didn't work for this item.
  • The entire series is fraught with Unfortunate Implications. Apparently, only vampires can ever aspire to be someone great. In fact, the vast majority of celebrities are secretly vampires. Also, The One Guy in the main group, Damien, has overtones of Have I Mentioned I am Gay?. While Aphrodite is an Alpha Bitch, the story constantly calls her out on being a "ho" just for dressing like one and having occasional oral sex, despite the fact that Zoey (the protagonist) is trailing at least three love interests AND lost her virginity to a teacher. Throughout all this, even the other characters get in on the Aphrdite-bashing, even denying that Zoey is even a little like her.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
02:44:10 AM Apr 4th 2013
Citation Needed:
  • Black Hawk Down has several.
    • The Somali culture is grossly simplified and misrepresented (eg. ethnic diversity, as many / most Somalis are of Arab descent, but here all are Black), and though there are lots of talk and scenes of their humanity and the fact that most Somali's are just ordinary people living in a Crapsack World, the vast majority seen are either rampaging mobs or ruthless militiamen, and are certainly not treated with the same level of empathy any of the Americans are given. It got to to the point of reports of Somali audiences cheering whenever an American soldier was killed.
      • As an aside, faction leader Osman Ali Atto- the basis for the character from the beginning who was captured and interrogated by Sam Shepard- claimed that in Real Life he only had a single car (not a three-car motorcade) and the actual capture was far more bloody and violent, with the car being hit fifty times (rather than a single warning shot) and his collegue (not shown) being shot in both legs. He also felt the actor portaying him looked nothing like him and claimed he never smoked cigars nor wore earings. Of course, he also received one hell of a Historical Villain Downgrade- he was a major arms dealer, drug trafficker, warlord and murderer and US Intel literally called him the Evil Genius of the movies Bigger Bad Muhammed Farrah Aidid-, so inaccuracy goes both ways.
    • The role of the Pakistani military is grossly downplayed in the movie (and it isn't exactly favourable either, portrayed as Jerkasses who give the Americans attitude before sending help), and the Malaysian UN peacekeepers are completely written out. In Real Life both played crucial roles and a hell of a lot more Americans would have died without them. Understandably, both countries were as annoyed as the Somalians about the portrayal.
    • Related to the above, several studies suggest that the War Is Hell tone of the movie masks an ultimately Eagle Land Type 1 Do Not Do This Cool Thing message, as the American troops are virtually all portrayed as heroic and Badass as well as given 99% of the real characterization in the movie- a fairly standard propaganda strategy since World War 1, to encourage the audience to empathize with the troops and not so much demonize the enemy as give them as little character as possible- ie.Heterogeneous Heroes vs Homogenous Villains. The fact that it was made during the gung-ho Presidency of George W. Bush (though pre-9/11- released afterwards, but filmed before) hasn't gone unnoticed either. Overall the movie can sometimes come across as a (very, very good and often brutally honest) 2-hour advertisement for the United States military, especially with all the "why we fight" speeches, one of which the film ends on.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
12:20:46 AM Mar 22nd 2013
Citation Needed:
  • When the British girl group Eternal were in America, they complained that music journalists were less interested in Louise - the group's only white member - than in the other three. Ironically, guess which member of the group got more British media attention than the other three combined...
immortalfrieza
topic
10:33:03 PM Feb 24th 2013
It should not require citations to put examples on this trope page, to have to do so defies No Such Thing As Notability.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
03:53:19 AM Feb 25th 2013
a) We decided this in Trope Repair Shop

b) No Such Thing As Notability does not mean what you think it means.
MrDeath
08:30:37 AM Feb 25th 2013
Without the citations this page is just another repository for griping and whining about whatever miniscule, insignificant, and—occasionally—flat-out made up "implication" someone who doesn't like the work can dig up. And we already have a place for that to go, and it's called "the rest of the internet."
immortalfrieza
03:45:10 PM Feb 25th 2013
edited by immortalfrieza
Maybe so, but Unfortunate Implications is a subjective trope, that's to be expected, and it's the risk one takes when they make a subjective trope.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
03:34:21 AM Feb 26th 2013
Subjective =/= You can add anything you want.
MrDeath
08:28:05 AM Feb 26th 2013
Really, that should be the banner on top of the YMMV tropes. Far too many people think "YMMV" means "anything goes and you can gripe however you want."
immortalfrieza
04:11:07 PM Feb 27th 2013
As long as it at least vaguely fits the trope, subjective means you CAN add anything you want.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
06:56:53 AM Feb 28th 2013
Nope. It means that opinions are going to disagree and that you don't contest examples for disagreeing with your opinion. Not that you can override other policies because you can.
immortalfrieza
06:47:11 PM Feb 28th 2013
edited by immortalfrieza
Do I have to literally tell people exactly what subjective is? Fine, here:

sub·jec·tive [suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA

adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Even if citations were required in T Vtropes, a subjective trope by it's very nature CAN NOT have citations because any and all things that could possibly be citied are in themselves subjective. There is no fact involved.

When someone creates a subjective trope, especially one which fits such a wide array of situations, they should expect to have that trope filled to the brim in opinionated, even whiny examples, otherwise they shouldn't make that trope to begin with, and once it's been made, they shouldn't whine about it being misused, especially when it isn't being misused. They knew or should have known exactly what they were getting into.

It doesn't matter what people have decided, when you defy your own rules, both the letter and the spirit of said rules, you can't expect no one to take notice and not to call you on it.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
12:10:43 AM Mar 1st 2013
Dude, stop Rules Lawyering. We have a perfectly serviceable page YMMV.Home Page that explains the concept of subjectivity on TV Tropes. We don't use that sort of dictionary stuff.

And we are not citing facts here. We are citing to keep nonsense examples off.

immortalfrieza
01:26:00 AM Mar 1st 2013
edited by immortalfrieza
That's just perfect isn't it? When you are soundly defeated at every turn you just dismiss what the other says Rules Lawyering, it saves you the trouble of having to provide an actual argument against it.

Besides, what made you guys the authority on what "nonsense examples" are?

Oh, and the YMMV homepage doesn't set any rules one way or the other about what constitutes subjectivity on T Vtropes, try actually reading it.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
03:14:15 AM Mar 1st 2013
Nope. The definition of YMMV (Not "subjective") is that you may not pull examples because you disagree. That does not mean you can't pull examples because they violate the rules of the trope.

The authority was given here. People kept adding examples so absurd that we decided to require citations.

Now, if you want to change that, go to TRS. I'll cut this discussion short as it's in the wrong place.
MrDeath
09:39:32 AM Mar 1st 2013
You're missing the point of the citations—the citations are to say, "Enough people think this that it's a legitimate problem and has been noticed outside of here." It's to keep people from just using this page to bitch and moan because a show they don't like had the audacity to portray someone of X race doing Y bad thing, therefore obviously implying that all X's do nothing but Y all the time.
Hodor
09:47:46 AM Mar 1st 2013
I also do want to note that the example immortalfrieza wanted to add doesn't seem to have anything to do with this trope (at least as currently written).

Here is the example:

  • The backstory of the aquatic Dreugh states that they were once a proud ancient civilization, and thus sentient... who are now routinely hunted down and slaughtered for the magical properties of the wax they produce as well as their skins for making armor.

Its not clear at all how the work presents this fact. If presumably, this is a bad thing, then it is just a disturbing detail of the story and not at all Unfortunate Implications.

If the story presents this in a neutral to favorably light, then I could definitely see it being added as an example- you just need proof.

One other thing, is that it would kind of "help" for the purposes of this trope if (for instance, I know nothing about the work), the Dreugh are clearly meant as a fantasy version of Texans.
MrDeath
11:54:09 AM Mar 1st 2013
Actually, that last thing is more about what this "trope" is about—the work making an implication about real life. If it's just that something horrible is happening in the game and most people don't realize it, that's Fridge Horror.
Hodor
12:19:41 PM Mar 1st 2013
Good point. That's what I was trying to get at but not being concise enough.
Rabukurafuto
topic
08:15:00 PM Feb 19th 2013
Given the strict changes to criteria in this article, does that mean Unfortunate Implications should not be included in the subjective tropes pages for works?
SeptimusHeap
moderator
03:16:05 AM Feb 20th 2013
The discussion leading to this really was more about the examples here.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
11:25:13 AM Feb 10th 2013
Citation Needed:
  • The one that they caught: The original lyrics to "Biggest Blame Fool" were:
Acting as if he's holding a jewel!
Somebody stuck a trunk on a mule!
The intended joke, of Horton being stubborn as a mule, is generally mistaken for his being called an ass. Lyrics were changed when the rights were released, but the OBC still has the original lyrics.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
10:13:08 AM Feb 10th 2013
Citation Needed:
  • Batgirl: Spoiled, The first episode ends with Steph, after being overpowered after getting too cocky, finds herself nearly being gang raped by the gang of criminals she tried to stop. While also having the implication that all criminals are depraved rapists, the main implication that probably lead to this being killed before it could start is one that is raised whenever a superheroine or Action Girl ends up in this situation: No matter how skilled, prepared, badass, or powerful a woman is, she is still a potential rape victim, and it will always be possible for someone to rape them.
Illuminatus
topic
04:03:58 PM Jan 24th 2013
edited by Illuminatus
Are we gonna update the page image ever to reflect the actual controversy (King Kong) and not some random propaganda poster?
SeptimusHeap
moderator
12:53:24 AM Jan 25th 2013
Please head to Image Picking for this.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
01:15:40 PM Jan 22nd 2013
Citation Needed:
MrDeath
01:56:49 PM Jan 22nd 2013
This is kind of an invoked version, and isn't the DVD commentary a 'citation'? It's something the author himself noted, then deliberately averted.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
11:23:58 AM Jan 11th 2013
Citation Needed:
  • Star Trek: The Next Generation has S1 E4 Code of Honor, an episode so charged with racial stereotypes and Unfortunate Implications and outright racism that it's kind of hard to watch. The plot is that there is a planet of aliens who look exactly like humans of African descent and dress in a mix of stereotype of what Shaka's warriors might wear and leopard-skin hot pants. This would be bad enough. However, the leader of these tribes is a somewhat sexist man who falls for blond-haired Lt. Yar, kidnaps her, and tries to get his highest ranking consort killed via a duel with Yar so he can inherit her property. Their society actually follows tribal-style concepts of status and honor, including "counting coup." And the Enterprise crew can't simply decide to have no part in any of this nonsense because the people of this planet have a vaccine which is vital to the survival of another planet, but are so wrapped up in their contests of honor that they will not release it until the Enterprise crew plays along. So you have an African stereotype kidnapping a pretty white woman to marry her, necessitating the pretty white woman's companions to try to save her while she has to fight an enraged, jealous African female, all so the pretty white woman's companions can do the much more important work of saving another people from disease. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
Mystikan
07:59:13 PM Jan 19th 2013
"Who the hell thought this was a good idea?"

Someone who lived during a earlier time, when people hadn't yet seen the Light of Political Correctness, as you so obviously have. This may come as a surprise to you, but there was a time when racial and gender stereotypes were considered a normal aspect of human nature, before people like you taught all of us oldthinking, racist, sexist, xenophobic, misogynistic, right-wing Nazi bigots how to think correctly. The episode you're referring to was written back in that time.
Abodos
06:44:04 PM Jan 30th 2013
Septimus isn't the one who actually wrote this example. Just saying.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
01:27:09 PM Jan 9th 2013
Citation Needed
  • Warehouse 13: The show acknowledges H.G. Wells as a feminist and introduces the author as a highly competent, intelligent character. To have a strong female character, the show decides to make H.G. Wells a woman who let her brother take the credit. The implication is that men cannot be feminists and only women will strongly defend feminist viewpoints.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
01:52:52 AM Jan 2nd 2013
Citation Needed
  • Bratz:
    • In one episode of the cartoon, Jade's pet cat, Mica (named after a common ingredient in makeup), is "petnapped" along with Burdine's dog. While going on about how upset she is by this, she refers to the cat as "[her] best accessory". She is also seen using the cat as a boa during a photo shoot earlier in the show. Remember kids: Animals are fashion accessories, not living things.
    • Bratz Babyz. Need we say more?
    • The commercial for the Secret Date dolls is creepily reminiscent of prostitution, right down to the outfit the young actress changes into.
    • The Secret Date dolls came with a Bratz girl and a randomised boy, that would mean both the girls and guys really got around.
    • Genie Magic has a scene where Yasmin is upset about all of the stray animals that are outside during a thunderstorm. A few minutes later, in the same scene, Cloe freaks out at the thought of Katia being out on her own because she will be living on the streets and will eventually end up looking and smelling like a homeless person.
    • Rock Angelz has Sasha admitting to a horoscope that tells her that she can't stay committed to "just one guy". "When you're this gorgeous, why should you?"
    • Anything involving relationships really...
    • The original ads featured the slogan "Don't theorise, accessorise!" This toy brand almost literally tried to sell itself as "don't think, buy!"
    • What about the slogan for the sports line? "It doesn't matter how you play, it's how good you look when you win."
      • Well it could be a variation of the common motto that the most important thing in a game isn't winning, but having fun. And we all know what the Bratz's idea of fun is...
    • The book Model Friendship has Jade enter a modelling competition and finding out that Cameron has entered Cloe as well. Jade asks Cloe to drop out. Cloe before this point, showing no interest in the competition, decides to enter and they spend the rest of the book being catty witches towards each other. Eventually, they make up. But not because of Yasmin and Sasha, because of the boys. The lesson? Girls will fight each other until the death while the others watch unless big strong men are there to calm them down.
    • This quote from Jade: "Fave Books? I prefer fashion mags."
    • Eitan (the only boy) is the only one whose Bio includes Wants To Be, yes, he's the only one with any ambition aside from a fashion passion.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
01:22:32 AM Dec 30th 2012
Citation Needed
  • Among the main cast of Italian comic book Gea there's Ahmad Al-Khatib, a police detective of Lebanese origin who's a Reasonable Authority Figure. Over time, he often meets with the eponymous main character and learns of the existence of beings from parallel worlds, all without losing much of his cool, and his faith was rarely brought up, if ever. Then, in the final issues, a demonic invasion plunges Earth into an apocalypse. Next time Gea meets him, he has organized a strong resistance group but has turned fanatical. The religious imagery he uses is taken from several faiths, and he's in general a metaphor of what the horrors of war can turn a person into, but he's still too close to the "religiously fanatical arab" stereotype at that point. Even more jarring considering how the rest of the comic was sensitive about several issues.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
09:29:16 AM Dec 24th 2012
Pulled this entry for lacking the citation:
  • One of the main complaints in Naruto is how female characters are treated. They are either completely devoted to one person without much personality other than that (basically unable to become their own characters), their way of view and life revolves around a man, etc. They're also rather undeveloped and underused (Kakashi, Gai, and even Asuma got a Day in the Limelight but Kurenai? Not once), and basically look like babymakers (Kurenai was flat out said to live so her father can have a grandchild). Though when Kishimoto subverts this, its rather awesome. Or even plays with the first one to make a character-such as Hinata, actually grow.
PurpleAlert
topic
03:37:40 PM Dec 11th 2012
How do you cite something that pretty much comes directly from the work in question?

I added a bit on Valkyria Chronicles, but it got taken down for lack of citation.... The parallel of Valkyria = WMD's is painfully obvious and just about universally accepted, but I don't know where I can find a place that explicitly states it.
Nithael
02:30:12 AM Dec 12th 2012
I have never played that game, but if it's really obvious and the implications come from the work itself, then it may be another trope (like Fantastic Nuke, Anvilicious, Person of Mass Destruction, Does This Remind You of Anything?, Nuclear Weapons Taboo...)
Nithael
02:30:15 AM Dec 12th 2012
edited by Nithael
edit: double post
PurpleAlert
06:06:09 PM Dec 14th 2012
It's more that the WMD parallel also directly connects to other aspects of the plot and specific characters, which implies certain things about that connection. I know I'm not the only person who sees that connection (there are at least other tropers out there who see it) but I don't know where to go to find a credible source.
aaeyero
topic
04:16:35 PM Nov 27th 2012
ZOMG! Citations?!? TV Tropes is Ruined Forever!!!
Willbyr
moderator
03:48:32 AM Nov 28th 2012
ZOMG! No citations?!? These pages really sucked.
PatchGipper
topic
08:41:33 PM Nov 3rd 2012
Where did all the examples go? I realise that yes, some things did not belong, but a lot of examples that belonged here are gone, and i can't see any reason to it. Seeing Mr. Krabs as a jewish stereotype, I can understand deleting. But there were a hell of a lot more examples in the Advertisement folder, and I know that not all of them needed to be cut.
MrDeath
08:06:00 AM Nov 5th 2012
The rules changed so that there had to be some kind of documentation supporting it, because the UI pages were filled with the flimsiest bullcrap that anyone could come up with to bash whatever show they didn't like at the time.
RosesSpindle
topic
02:43:38 PM Aug 26th 2012
edited by RosesSpindle
I want to list an example for Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, but I'm having trouble finding the citation necessary. I can find wiki pages that reference it, but I'd really like to have the actual translated source. Help, please?

Here's the example I have in mind:

In Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, Marluxia was originally intended to be a woman. However, once they started to develop the game's plot, the developers realized that having the only two women out of a group of thirteen plotting to overthrow the men in charge and subsequently getting killed for it by another male would end up raising some eyebrows and thus changed his gender.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
02:31:26 AM Aug 18th 2012
This example needs a citation or it can't stay.
  • An example from Harry Potter would be that the only canonically gay love is also the only time in the series when the The Power of Love - as opposed to an infatuation like Merope's - is a destructive force rather than a positive. In a series about how The Power of Love is the most powerful magic of all, this comes off as quite an oversight.
    • There's also the whole "Grindelwald was actually manipulating Dumbledore and didn't have romantic feelings for him" thing, which makes it make more sense when you realize that the two "destructive The Power of Love" examples are of unrequited love. Which also manifests itself in Tonks, who becomes weaker because of it. Getting the idea of "Love is awesome, but loving someone who doesn't love you back sucks" out. Which isn't an unfortunate implication.
    • It could be. Some say the love we give away is the only love we keep. Others see willingness to release a person as a noble thing. The Other Wiki has more.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
02:30:17 AM Aug 18th 2012
A YMMV page is likely insufficient as a citation - self-citations don't make sense.
  • Twilight has become rather notorious for these. You can visit its YMMV page for more details.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
02:29:24 AM Aug 18th 2012
Lacks the citation:
  • Consider the creepy paedophilic themes in Phantom Of The Opera version, due to casting younger actors than usual in the roles. Erik poses as Christine's father's ghost, starting when she arrives at the opera house at a very young age — and continues posing as her father's ghost after attempting a romantic relationship with her. The stage version never specifically says when Christine came to the Opera and the Phantom started hanging around her (and it is generally assumed that, as in the original novel, she was a young woman by that point). The massive Electra complex overtones remain, though...As Phantom of the Opera in 15 Minutes says, "Daddy issues ahoy!"
SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
02:26:51 AM Aug 18th 2012
Citation Needed:
  • Seussical: the Musical, in its effort to give each character an individual musical style, trips over this trope but hard. The protagonists, needing to be straightforward and often innocent, get generic folky pop (Horton, Gertrude, Jo-Jo) or old-time vaudeville stuff (Cat in the Hat). The antagonists are a little more cartoony and therefore get more distinctive music... Latin for Mayzie the lazy bird who abandons her egg to go party, 70's funk for the threatening Wickersham Brothers (and they're literally monkeys. Whoo boy), and the sour kangaroo is specifically modeled after Aretha Franklin. Yikes.
qwertyman
topic
09:47:26 AM Aug 17th 2012
edited by qwertyman
um... I'm not sure who to ask but I want to know what happened to the anime section of this tropes?
Telcontar
moderator
10:10:01 AM Aug 17th 2012
The examples now need proof that the opinion is held by non-tropers. Nothing in the Anime folder had this, so they were removed and the empty folder deleted. If you find a valid anime example, please do go ahead and add it.
DCC
topic
11:52:31 AM Aug 3rd 2012
"accused of hating the game simply because she was "a feminist". Yes, and? Why would that be pejorative?"

For the same reason the name of any other political viewpoint gets used as a pejorative—because the speaker disapproves of that viewpoint (or at least their impression of that viewpoint; strawmen do happen) and assumes their audience will as well.

Some feminist fora have used terms like "conservative" as pejoratives. For exactly the same reason—they disapprove of conservatives, and assume their audience will as well.

For an extreme example of political pejoratives, almost everyone uses "Nazi" as a pejorative—for the exact same reason; they disapprove of Nazis and believe their audience will as well.

Whether people *should* use any particular political term as a pejorative is probably a YMMV.

DCC
topic
03:26:23 PM Aug 2nd 2012
Just realized about the picture—if you think about it, the Unfortunate Implication is that Le Bron *is the Kaiser of Germany!*
MrDeath
07:14:09 AM Aug 3rd 2012
No...no it's not.
DCC
11:13:23 AM Aug 3rd 2012
  • Sigh* Should have put a smiley on that.

SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
10:48:21 AM Aug 1st 2012
Per TRS thread, subpages have been cut and citation standard is now in place.
azraelfinalstar
topic
09:29:30 PM May 9th 2012
This needs a real good pruning, or even the axe. It has become "I'll see if i can find anything in this work that could be stretched beyond all recognition and made offensive" and that shit shouldn't fly.
MagBas
06:31:36 PM May 15th 2012
I concur with this.
MrDeath
07:00:07 AM May 16th 2012
Thirded. It's become just a place for people to nitpick and bash any work they don't like.
WinterWorlock
02:52:53 AM Jun 7th 2012
Fourthed. Geez, most of the examples here are just pathetic.
Nithael
03:14:33 AM Jun 7th 2012
Fifthed all the way.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
03:36:31 AM Jun 7th 2012
^Take it to Trope Repair Shop, then. And you need some evidence, like a wick check
Illuminatus
topic
07:48:11 AM Feb 9th 2012
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't the point of an Unfortunate Implication the possibility that the author agrees with the implied message? I see a couple examples where people list implications that are drawn by the villain's actions. Notably, the Batman: Arkham City example - The female characters are constantly degraded by the criminals. But those are the criminals, their views are clearly supposed to be repugnant. If the writer puts those words in the villains' mouth, is it really unfortunate?
Drolyt
01:36:08 AM Feb 10th 2012
Perhaps that is how it should be, but the description makes it clear that this trope is based entirely on viewer reaction, anything a viewer sees as unfortunate, no matter how hard you have to squint to see it, counts. I'm not sure how that counts as a trope at all, but that seems to be how it works.
Iaculus
03:30:03 AM Feb 11th 2012
Plus, there is the fact that the ladies are all hypersexualised, Talia gets fridged, and so on. So Arkham City does have issues beyond what all the villains have to say.
LongGunner15
06:45:53 PM Apr 16th 2012
...........Thanks, Iaculus.
Stoogebie
topic
02:05:03 PM Dec 7th 2011
I'm seeing a lot of this trope all over the place. If the Big Bad or Complete Monster belongs to any kind of racial/sexual minority, for instance, then it's "OMG It says bad things about gays/blacks/mixed/Muslims/Jews/etc.!" Action Girl* certainly has the implication that if you're female and you can't kick ass like it's no one's business, then you're nothing more than a pathetic Damsel Scrappy who doesn't even deserve that Knight in Shining Armor! I could go on all day.

My prediction is that eventually, this page will be so bloated with examples that someone will have to scrap it clean and it'll end up a No Examples, Please page. Thing is, anything can be found offensive to someone from a given angle, no matter how hard you try.
Drolyt
08:54:57 PM Dec 8th 2011
Actual, I think it should be a No Examples, Please entry, and potholing to this page should also be stopped. Like you said, some people seem to be able to find unfortunate implications in pretty much anything, and they seem intent on subtly complaining about these supposed implications on TV Tropes.
Robotnik
06:34:54 PM Dec 15th 2011
edited by Robotnik
I third. What's the difference between this and Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, really? What good can come out of this page?
Jackerel
topic
03:05:21 PM Aug 7th 2011
Can we please get a new fucking picture? It's really grasping at straws.
illegalcheese
11:20:49 PM Oct 12th 2011
Not as much as you'd think. As the caption points out, it did cause real world controversy, so quite a few people either made the connection or saw the connection and thought it made too much sense.
PacificMackerel
04:04:12 PM Nov 2nd 2011
Except said people grasped at straws, too. A caricature meant to represent WWI-era Germany is now racist. Great going, PC crowd.
SpellBlade
04:19:13 PM Nov 2nd 2011
Take it to Image Pickn'
Drolyt
08:52:53 PM Dec 8th 2011
Can someone please provide a link demonstrating this supposed controversy? Like a news article or something? And the image should probably link to a relevant news article as well.
rtozier
topic
03:37:18 PM Jul 22nd 2011
After having read significant portions of this trope, and thought about its title, I believe it would be more appropriately titled "Unfortunate Inferrences".
KSonik
topic
03:36:59 PM Jun 25th 2011
edited by KSonik
Removed family unfriendly Aesops because this page is about unfortunate implications not about unfortunate blatant statement. Family Unfriendly Aesop does not mean "any implication in work I don't like" It means that the moral as actually shown, not just implied, is not suitable for children. A family Unfriendly Aesop by definition cannot be an implication.
aaeyero
topic
01:29:03 PM May 3rd 2011
I have an idea for a cool picture for this page, although it does involve a bad translation: http://www.engrish.com/2007/12/then-say-someone-made-you-do-it/.
CyberTiger88
topic
12:33:05 PM Apr 22nd 2011
I think the Unfortunate Implications pages are worthy of being added into the Darth Wiki.
Jerrik
12:54:09 PM Apr 22nd 2011
I agree.
DeathCloud
11:29:07 AM Jun 16th 2011
Me to. Also ban on potholing.
MagBas
12:29:16 PM Nov 6th 2011
edited by MagBas
I am against because i guess Darth Wiki is not a dumping ground. However, i am ok with a Flame Bait banner.
150.176.227.130
topic
11:09:18 AM Oct 27th 2010
edited by 150.176.227.130
I know it's been talked about before, but what is up with the image? You really have to force that into context to make it work for this trope.
TBeholder
06:51:10 PM Nov 3rd 2010
But that's the whole point, no?
Leaper
11:17:57 PM Nov 25th 2010
No. If you just defined it that way, you could say that literally anything has unfortunate implications. There IS a certain limit to the twisting and squinting you're allowed to do - the problem is that few agree on what that limit is.
Blork
12:06:11 PM Nov 26th 2010
Is there any reason at all to link the images? Yeah, when you put them right next to each other they look vaguely similar-ish, but one is a magazine cover featuring a basketballer while the other is a WWII recruitment poster about a giant Nazi gorilla. It's possible I'm missing some kind of context here, but as it is it looks like someone trawled through hundreds of images until they found two that sort of resembled each other.
Drolyt
08:51:29 PM Dec 8th 2011
The quote seems to imply that there was an actual controversy over the image, but this is the first I've heard of it.
Illuminatus
07:50:54 AM Feb 9th 2012
There was controversy over the image, but the image it was being compared to was King Kong, not some random WWI propaganda poster that no one's seen in 95 years.
SabreJustice
topic
04:20:09 AM Aug 17th 2010
Anyone else find it a bit depressing that this page is so long?
MarkLungo
02:20:54 PM Aug 17th 2010
Well, that's why it's indexed on the Depressing Tropes page.
TBeholder
04:51:26 AM Aug 18th 2010
No, that's what carries it beyond this and into comedy gold.
Carracosta
07:41:32 PM Sep 22nd 2012
Somebody "fixed" that, but now it looks too bare. On a related subject, does anybody know where the "Example.com" link is supposed to lead to? It's a dead end.
Telcontar
moderator
11:57:53 PM Sep 22nd 2012
That's deliberate. It's just an example to show that a link is needed, not an actual citation.
Peteman
topic
09:30:33 AM Aug 14th 2010
To explain why romancing Varren is squick and not Unfortunate Implications: It's not Interspecies Romance. It's beastiality, because Varren are non-sentient animals. It would be UI if it's implied that certain ethnic groups/sentient species engage in it.
Acebrock
topic
04:19:48 PM Jul 27th 2010
I'm trying to figure out what's so offensive or unfortunate about Me Love You Long Time (asian on white relationship) or Where Da White Women At (Black on White relationship), aside from the rather biased portrayal on the page. I mean, what's wrong with those particular pairings unless someone wants to say that any interracial relationship is automatically bad (which has a few rather unfortunate implications in itself)?

Can someone give me a good explanation as to why they're actually on here, that actually shows unfortunate implications?

BTW, in my opinion saying that the asian girl going for the white guy because of the Mighty Whitey stereotype is mighty offensive to me, never mind heavily implying that there can't be honest and equal love there, which has some rather unfirtunate implications in and of itself.
MegaJ
08:43:20 PM Jul 27th 2010
http://theasianplayboy.blogspot.com/2010/06/asian-men-black-women-datings-final.html

"If it wasn’t already apparent in the media, Asian men and Black women are the most under-sexualized class of citizens in the United States...With that being said, there are some negative views about both Asian men and Black women which poorly represent these two groups of people. Some of these negative views are that Asian men aren’t manly enough and Black women aren’t feminine enough. Another is that Asian men are not as socially outgoing and Black women are too loud and outspoken."
JackMackerel
11:34:33 AM Aug 8th 2010
Asian men and Black women are the most under-sexualized class of citizens in the United States.

What.

Oh, and as soon as they're sexualized, BAM! UNFORTUNATE IMPLICATIONS!
MatthewTheRaven
12:13:30 PM Aug 8th 2010
I had the same response. The Asian male part makes sense - Asian men aren't exactly given leads in romantic comedies - but I've heard the exact opposite complaint about the depiction of Black women in the American media. They're always hypersexualized.

That's the problem with racist stereotypes - they're incredibly contradictory. Jews: Communist agitators or Capitalist overlords? Backwards traditionalists or radical liberals? Mexican-Americans: Lazy well-fare moochers or so hardworking THEY TURK ER JERBS?! Mainly because stereotyping is about completely removing any shade of grey in the middle of two extremes.

It doesn't help that on the liberal side we frequently forget that the media also has many, many depictions of people that don't fall into our stereotypes about the media's stereotypes, as is the case here.
MegaJ
12:13:36 PM Aug 8th 2010
Under-sexualized, seen as not desirable romantic/sex partners, etc. Plus you ignored the second part of that statement.
MatthewTheRaven
12:53:24 PM Aug 8th 2010
I know and commented on it (have you ever seen David Mamet's Race? A big part of it the sexual portrayal of Black women in American culture), and how did I ignore the second part? I was commenting on the weird nature of American stereotyping.
MegaJ
08:43:37 PM Aug 8th 2010
I was talking the commenter above you Matthew. In any case, the point still stands.
TBeholder
08:12:33 PM Jan 7th 2011
edited by TBeholder
@Jack Mackerel: But that's the whole point. You can't objectively comply with any complete ideology, only "waver with the Course Of The Party". Everything is heretical. If it's impossible to lynch anyone at will, it doesn't serve the purpose and thus requirements are going to be patched until they are either meaningless or contradictory. Whether the guilty will be blamed as a faithful of Cthulhu Cuhltist, spy of Antarctica, CO2-exhaler or visual groper is irrelevant.
TwinBird
topic
10:48:26 PM Jul 7th 2010
Okay, Dr. Shada, please explain here, why did you delete the majority of the rape tropes? Certainly Rape Is Okay When It Is Female On Male is less controversial than Rape as Redemption...
WeirdRaptor
topic
01:31:38 AM Jul 7th 2010
I'm seeing plenty of entries for this troper when its more of a bit of a stretch to read that much into it. For, on the Ico article, one jerk claims that Ico is a game about a horny boy who is draggin a curvy white girl through a castle beating up black guys with a stick. Bullcrap. Ico is under 13, Yorda is a spirit being, and the shadows are...shadows, and in no way resemble black people. Please, tropers, be reasonable when using this trope. It makes various films and such look bad when they don't deserve it. Else I will be deleting every entry I think doesn't fit.
WeirdRaptor
01:32:46 AM Jul 7th 2010
Alright, somehow I managed to double post. My apologies, I did not do this on purpose. May one of my entries onto this discussion be deleted please.
WeirdRaptor
topic
01:31:37 AM Jul 7th 2010
I'm seeing plenty of entries for this troper when its more of a bit of a stretch to read that much into it. For, on the Ico article, one jerk claims that Ico is a game about a horny boy who is draggin a curvy white girl through a castle beating up black guys with a stick. Bullcrap. Ico is under 13, Yorda is a spirit being, and the shadows are...shadows, and in no way resemble black people. Please, tropers, be reasonable when using this trope. It makes various films and such look bad when they don't deserve it. Else I will be deleting every entry I think doesn't fit.
76.230.47.208
11:02:31 PM Jul 7th 2010
He is horny. Two horns growing out of his head. It's an Incredibly Lame Pun.
WeirdRaptor
01:12:44 AM Jul 8th 2010
Then put it as Incredibly Lame Pun, but there is no implication of desired sex or the ruthless beating of blacks in the game. Unfortunate Implications entries can be very hurtful to a feature's reputation. Do not use them with reckless abandon.
76.230.47.208
01:28:10 AM Jul 8th 2010
I didn't post the original entry, and I totally agree that that entry is more of a "Better than it sounds" entry than "unfortunate implications." I knew I should have mentioned it in my original post, but you are totally right that it should be removed from what is largely a serious article. I just thought you missed the incredibly lame pun and needed it pointed out to you.
Evilest_Tim
01:59:40 AM Jul 8th 2010
Unfortunate Implications entries can be very hurtful to a feature's reputation.

I really don't think they can.
WeirdRaptor
12:44:57 AM Jul 9th 2010
edited by WeirdRaptor
Wanna bet, Tim? This world is full of overly sensative people just itching for the chance to raise hell where there is no guilt to be had, and recklessly slapping the Unfortunate Implications tag on something like Ico where there is no implication at all, can seriously harm it. If The Nostalgia Critic can take heat for simply not liking Tank Girl or someone isn't allowed to like the Tom and Jerry movie because his fans take his word as gospel, then a poorly chosen edit to a TV Tropes article can cause trouble for a given work if its users are not judicious.

Oh, no, I didn't miss the pun. Its the part about "beating up black people" that I call bullcrap on.

My point for this discussion in a nutshell: Tropers, please, please, please, please, please be careful where you sling things like Unfortunate Implications and the like.
Evilest_Tim
12:48:51 AM Jul 9th 2010
No, it can't. Seriously, you think there's going to be some kind of massive backdraft against Ico because someone, somewhere, wrote something down on the internet? It really doesn't work like that at all.
WeirdRaptor
02:29:22 AM Jul 9th 2010
Yes, I do and it can. If a forest fire can start from a single spark, then a massive backlash can start from something just as minor as an entry on a wiki. In fact, I've seen it happen. People start shit over the stupidest things. Don't you dare hide behind any "negativity directed at something can't hurt something" crap, because it can. You will not convince me otherwise.
Evilest_Tim
02:58:58 AM Jul 9th 2010
Well, that makes for fairly pointless discussions. You're exaggerating, but that doesn't mean the Ico example actually belongs here, so it's rather useless carrying on about this.
WeirdRaptor
10:36:14 PM Jul 9th 2010
edited by WeirdRaptor
I'm not carrying one. I feel very strongly about this, and not just for Ico. I just want to restate the fact that negative tropes should only go where truly deserved. Unfortunate Implications, for a trope, is a fairly serious one, so please: judicious editing, please.
Korbl
01:22:47 AM Jan 5th 2011
This applies to 300, I think, at least somewhat. Though I suppose the point, of the trope and my objection, is that it can be taken bad, and often is.

The thing is, there is no voice to the story. It was not intended to espouse anything. Thus it can be used to espouse anything. Replace everyone with absurdly coloured aliens, and it would just be another fiction flick with some awesome moments and graphics. People are just so uptight they seem to need to put a spin on everything.
MrDeath
09:04:05 AM Jan 5th 2011
I just wanna go on record as saying this is one of my most hated "tropes." At this point, it exists almost solely so people can point at a movie/show/game they don't like and shout, "Not only do I think it's bad, but it's also racist!"
TBeholder
08:04:45 PM Jan 7th 2011
But of course. The question is whether it's bad, and the answer depends on the sense of humor.
WinterWorlock
02:36:57 PM Jun 7th 2012
I think Weird Raptor is absolutely correct here.
MarkLungo
topic
05:48:51 PM May 24th 2010
Mag Bas gave this as his reason for deleting several tropes: "Have a discussion about if this trope is supposed to be only 'implication what can be seen as politically incorrect or offensive to real life group' and not the more generic 'something that can be seen as being insensitive.' I am putting the tropes there until discussion resolution, ok?" I'd like to begin the discussion by making a request, not just to Mag Bas but to all tropers: Please do not delete any more tropes from this page without discussing it first. Seriously, people have done this several times, and it always annoys me. Just because one troper thinks that a given trope doesn't belong here doesn't mean everyone agrees with them.
MegaJ
06:29:15 PM May 24th 2010
This is a highly subjective trope in the first place, so yes I agree that we should delete any (and if you're going to add one, put the implication). I do think it may be time for a clean-up, but suggest that in the discussion first.

And again, Unfortunate Implications doesn't necessarily mean "racist/politically correct," after all the Laconic entry says it itself: A Family-Unfriendly Aesop at it's unfriendliest (which I should probably put in the main descrip).
MagBas
07:34:38 PM May 25th 2010
edited by MagBas
The laconic version says this? Reading the main entry, this is "The media to which this wiki is devoted generally exhibit greater sensitivity to racial/sexual/cultural diversity, lifestyles, and sensitive subject matter now than in the past, but sometimes something appears that... raises eyebrows. This is a subjective trope, and some tropers believe concerns about such matters simply relate to political correctness rather than anything substantive. Other tropers may see the entire "political correctness" argument as a plausibly deniable defence of racism and other types of outdated thinking." This means only this? A huge Family-Unfriendly Aesop?
MegaJ
07:43:58 PM May 25th 2010
Yes, some Family Unfriendly Aesops can have these unfortunate implications. There's going to be some crossover between the two tropes, no need to completely separate them.
MagBas
07:44:27 PM May 25th 2010
edited by MagBas
Humm...the "sensitive subject matter" bit was put today.
MegaJ
08:45:30 PM May 25th 2010
I added it due to the confusion. The implication behind What Measure Is a Mook? is that the mooks' lives aren't worth anything which is Moral Dissonance and can make people uncomfortable.

We never had this problem until now, so I added it to make it clear.
MagBas
03:08:33 AM May 26th 2010
Thanks.

MagBas
06:44:06 PM Jul 1st 2010
In either case, i read the Family-Unfriendly Aesop trope description and well...

"Note that just because something happens in a story, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a Family Unfriendly Aesop. A story about a criminal who gets away with murder is not necessarily teaching the moral that crime does pay. A story with a big Downer Ending does not mean it is trying to teach a lesson that life is pointless. If it's not the point of a story, it's not An Aesop.

Before adding an example to this list, think about whether the example is actually preaching a moral, or if it is simply telling a story to entertain. An unusual moral also doesn't count if it's played for laughs; that's a Spoof Aesop. If it started out as a good moral, but was broken, that doesn't count either; that's a Broken Aesop. If you are drawing absurd conclusions from a story which doesn't have a moral, then see Warp That Aesop on Darth Wiki.

Compare Clueless Aesop and some cases of Unfortunate Implications. See also The Complainer Is Always Wrong. "

Hmm... sounds as they are saying Accidental Aesops not count as Family Unfriendly Aesops. I guess the laconic version needs an improvement.
MegaJ
07:47:26 PM Jul 1st 2010
The laconic version has been changed to "Potentially offensive tropes."
MagBas
03:32:42 AM Jul 2nd 2010
Ok. Thanks.
sovvil2008@yahoo.co.uk
topic
05:47:00 AM May 9th 2010
Interesting topic I have to bring up concerning tokenism. Yes most of the token characters I have seen are pretty shallow and uninteresting, but I always thought it was the way these token characters were portrayed rather than whether or not there were only one of a specific group appearing in the work. Am I wrong to assume that there is nothing wrong in include a token female in the group (although why women are treated as a minority I'll never understand. Don't they make up half of the Earth's population?) as long as she was an interesting, nonstereotypical, complex and decent woman in a world inhabitated by men?
MegaJ
06:59:39 PM May 24th 2010
Yeah, I would agree that a token can be interesting, but the point of the Unfortunate Implications trope is that the Token tropes can still be seen as offensive/insensitive.
sovvil2008@yahoo.co.uk
03:54:51 AM May 25th 2010
Well I agree it could depending on how the token character is portrayed. I'd say it's more of a Sturgeons Trope. this trope is supposed to be about the portrayal, not how many of a specific ethnic group there are.
sovvil2008@yahoo.co.uk
topic
05:40:27 AM May 9th 2010
edited by sovvil2008@yahoo.co.uk
What is unfortunate implication? Seriously, i thought it was meant to be defined as any implication in the show that could be seen as politically incorrect and offensive to real life group (ie black people, asians, women, men), but some people seem to define certain tropes that (while it's implication isn't exactly great, can be applied to anyone regardless of their race, gender etc.) as unfortunate implication. Case in point - Redemption Equals Death
TBeholder
03:30:49 AM May 24th 2010
edited by TBeholder
It's something that sort-of-looks like the authors did try to send a rather Jerk Ass message, even though they didn't (usually because it's a mindless copypasta anyway).

IMHO.
87.115.20.64
03:45:40 AM May 24th 2010
edited by 87.115.20.64
Wait, isn't it supposed to be specific to an subtext that can be deemed as politically incorrect and not just something that can be seen as being insensitive. Redemption Equals Death in my opinion doesn't count as this but may count for Family-Unfriendly Aesop as it doesn't specifically target anyone and can be used against anyone regardless of their gender, race, nationality, etc. I think the definition you gave there is the definition that could be used for Family-Unfriendly Aesop
MagBas
02:55:56 PM May 24th 2010
edited by MagBas
I also guessed this, but others editors already reversed my edits.
MagBas
05:04:15 PM May 24th 2010
edited by MagBas
I am putting the tropes i not indentified the political incorrectness against a real life group here until the discussion end, depending as she end.

98.200.147.62
topic
04:17:05 PM May 6th 2010
Sean Tucker: Deleted Dropped a Bridget on Him, because the trope is about someone being squicked by the fact that they picked up a pre-op transsexual. Key word: pre-op. As in, has a penis/vagina/not the expected sexual organ. Being surprised by that is a pretty natural reaction.
MegaJ
08:50:41 PM May 6th 2010
There are other implications to that trope, as listed in the main article but we'll leave this off for now since it was taken off twice.
Mimimurlough
03:58:00 PM Jul 15th 2010
The reaction to Dropped a Bridget on Him is basically a form of homophobia - to be surprised or disappointed of unexpected genitals is one thing, but to react with squick means that you have a very negative view of same sex sex or desire. That, or you have a phobia of your own bits, which isn't really healthy either.
Evilest_Tim
10:57:16 PM Jul 15th 2010
It's not homophobia to dislike seeing a woman with a penis (which is the usual version), more just that most guys don't find the idea of a chick with a dick particularly physically appealing. It's not being homophobic to dislike the idea of same-sex sex happening to you, either, it's called being heterosexual.
MarkLungo
topic
01:25:02 PM Apr 5th 2010
To Mega J: Why did you delete several tropes?
MegaJ
08:50:56 PM Apr 5th 2010
Looking at them again and again, and trying to think of them from every angle, I couldn't really see any real offensive/unfortunate implication for the ones I deleted.
TBeholder
05:44:19 PM Apr 6th 2010
You just don't try to find a fault hard enough. Those who really want can (and do) nitpick even a lamppost. =)
MegaJ
09:56:21 PM Apr 6th 2010
I guess Hormone-Addled Teenager fits on further inspection, and so does Club Kid (a stereotype, much like Scary Black Man and Dragon Lady which I left alone) but Fag Hag? I think that's stretching it.
TheTamborineMan
08:31:33 AM Apr 15th 2010
Is it just me, or does the description for Cargo Cult seem to carry its own Implications?
Evilest_Tim
08:40:03 AM Apr 15th 2010
edited by Evilest_Tim
It's just you.

Slightly more seriously, it's pointing out the implication; Cargo Cult is universally used as a shorthand for people who are credulous and backward. The thing is, the things the trope picks out as signs of this are common to all messianic religions, so by extension the unfortunate implication is that all messianic religions are backward. It's particularly true of real Cargo Cults, where observers often make fun of the natives building useless airfields and planes even though they wouldn't dream of doing the same about churches and religious statues.
TominAZ
11:46:21 PM May 5th 2010
edited by TominAZ
Maybe because messianism isn't actually a major feature of most Cargo Cults?

To respond to something you said in your edit reasons, Evilest Tim, no, I have no objection to you comparing Christianity to real indigenous religions. I myself have compared it to the Navajo and Hopi religions, to which it bears a great resemblance. But a cargo cult is not an authentic indigenous religion; it's a desperate attempt by a disadvantaged people to prop up their way of life by slavishly aping more successful peoples, with no true understanding. It's more a cultural pathology than a real religious development, an unnaturally accelerated and abrupt syncretism. Know what the Navajo called the Ghost Dance, which was in many ways analogous to a Cargo Cult?

"Nothing but empty words." Many of their more traditional priests (hataali) have the same opinion of the Native American Church.

But please, discuss if you will the theology of the masked dancers in the Yei Bichaai, or the possible Puebloan origins of the Four Male Holy People of the Fourth World. You get self-righteous to me about indigenous religions? Okay, let's hear you discuss the Snake Clan's role in Hopi opposition to snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks.

See, I actually know a thing or two about indigenous religions; you don't appear to know anything about the largest religion on the planet. So quit your posturing.

My objection to your grotesque, laughable, provincial attempt to draw a parallel between Christianity and a Cargo Cult is twofold. First is Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment—it's insulting to a third of the human race, without being fucking funny enough to warrant it. Apart from messianism—which, again, is not actually a major factor in Cargo Cults, claiming a visionary founder isn't the same thing—there is very little in common between Christianity and that kind of religion. Christianity from the very beginning defined itself in opposition to the religion and customs not only of the Romans—which is who they'd have been copying if they'd been a Cargo Cult—but also of the Jews. Christianity, like Buddhism, is one of a very few truly transcendent religions; they're always going to be more different from than similar to any other religion you compare them to, even each other. Just for example, though both Christianity and Buddhism are transcendent religions that promise salvation from existential suffering, messianism does not make up a major component of Buddhist thought. The Maitreya is a relatively minor figure in their cosmology. And identifying him with the Dharmakaya isn't in any way significant, certainly not in the way Jesus' divinity is in Christianity, because the whole point of Buddhism is that everything is identical with the Dharmakaya. It's called advaita.

More importantly, though, your version wasn't accurate. Jesus is not held to be a prophet by Christians, at least Christians who in any way, shape or form accept the ecumenical councils. They consider him to be God. They don't consider heaven a reward; I got distracted by your risible assertion that Sola Gratia is "rather popular"—it's held by a sixth of all Christians, tops—but Sola Gratia itself is the precise opposite of heaven being a reward. All Christians who are in any way "orthodox" deny, explicitly, Salvation by Works. The Calvinists—with their Sola Gratia—deny that the human will has any role at all in salvation; they're monothelite. The Orthodox and Catholics say that the human's role is to cooperate with grace; Lutherans come closest to teaching that heaven is a reward, with their Sola Fide, but it's not even a fair characterization of them. All of them agree that nobody earns salvation; it's a gift. Pretty much from the Council of Jerusalem, Christians have self-defined in opposition to the Jewish concept of "earning a portion in the World to Come". And if you can find me the council, encyclical, or other document of any major Christian body that declared Pascal's Wager anything other than a rhetorical device, I'd dearly love to see it.

Frankly, the current form of the definition is just as bad as the other one, only instead of being shallowly anti-Christian, it's shallowly racist. Because nobody, not even Cargo Cultists, does use their religion as an explanation of things they don't understand. The Thunder People in Navajo mythology are not some dim anthropomorphism to make thunder "understandable"; they are just the Holy People you pray to if you need to be protected from thunder.

But apparently some of us don't know the Golden Bough was debunked?
Evilest_Tim
01:28:32 AM May 6th 2010
edited by Evilest_Tim
Ok, let's start on this.

Firstly, all those Christians are not you. It's ridiculously presumptous to assume you speak for even a majority of such a diverse religion on any subject. Off your high horse, right now.

Real cargo cults actually borrowed the majority of the common gross features of a messianic religion; the prophet or messiah comes with the promise of great reward at a non-specific time in return for faith and following rules. This is hardly surprising, as they're basically missionary Catholicism mixed with the people's original beliefs. Your absolute lack of understanding regarding what they're about (mirroring the classic David Attenborough documentary that wrote them off as little more than credulous children) is more than a little amusing given the rest of your claims, as is your hope that throwing out a bunch of examples you don't bother to explain the relevance of will somehow make me hiss and hide away like you're waving a crucifix at a marauding vampire.

Jesus is believed to be a prophet by the Abrahamic religions; Christians believe he was also God, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a prophet since he still acted as one. Claiming otherwise is just hair-splitting.

Also, explicit denial of salvation by works? Not read Rev 20:12-13 recently, I take it. The works / faith argument isn't nearly as clear-cut as you'd like to pretend it is. Regardless, the logic underlying the idea of Heaven remains "do this, get this (ps: this is really, really amazing) else get this (ps: this sucks)." You can twist as much rhetoric around it as you like (which, judging by your previous posts, will be quite a lot), but that, in any sane sense of the term, is a reward / punishment pairing.

As for your ludicrous assertion that religion isn't used to explain things not understood, what do you think it's doing when it offers explanations of what happens when we die, what our purpose is on the Earth and where we came from? Let's not even take into account things like the Flood and Sodom and Gommorrah ("why did that happen?" "oh, they must've pissed off God"), or older religions explaining how thunder was made (such as the various beliefs among iron-working peoples that it was from a great forge in the sky) or what made the sun move across the sky (the Egyptians and their dung beetle, Helios' chariot, etc). More to the point, the trope is about people using technology as a sign of divinity (in other words, assuming things they don't understand are gods or the action of gods), not about real cargo cults; the sentence fits that perfectly.

Also, 77,000 websites seem to think "apologism" is indeed a word. How about that, huh?
TominAZ
03:25:09 AM May 6th 2010
edited by TominAZ
Point by point.

Well, let's see—I know I'm right about Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, and Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), so, who's left? Nondenominational Christians usually still have Lutheran soteriology. That's what those sects teach; a given person is only a member of whichever one to the extent he believes what they teach. Sorry, was that complicated?

I don't consider Cargo Cultists "credulous children", anymore than most other humans, which is "somewhat". It's just that a Cargo Cult is not a messianic movement, it is a millennarian one, and the kind of thing that only arises when a people is in crisis—many millennarians adopt practices of peoples seen as being more successful. And that's why the comparison with Christianity can be seen as offensive; Christianity has a millenarian element, but it's not its main feature, and to say it is is a common canard. It's like this: Judaism does, in fact, have an element of concern with worldly success—you're supposed to pray for prosperity for yourself and your family—but to say that's its main feature is just to repeat the old "Jews are greedy" stereotype.

My point in throwing out all that information about Native American religions was simply to demonstrate you don't know what I know, and to demonstrate how arrogant it is for you to take a self-righteous attitude with someone who could write books on indigenous religions.

Jesus is believed to be a prophet by Muslims. He is believed to be a heretic, who may or may not have nevertheless been virtuous, by Jews. He is believed to be God—who emphatically cannot be his own prophet—by Christians. That is not hairsplitting; who and what Jesus was is the question of Christianity. That you don't understand the significance of Christological controversy is you admitting you don't get to have an opinion about that religion. That's like saying karma has nothing to do with Buddhism or the Law has nothing to do with Judaism.

Not read Revelation 20:12-13? You're assuming Sola Scriptura is the correct way of dealing with Christianity; it's held by a tiny minority. And even pretending for a moment that Sola Scriptura weren't a provincialism, you appear not to have read the huge swaths of Paul and Timothy that flat-out deny salvation by works. The whole point of Christianity—Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, mutatis mutandem—is that that judgment will be made...and then it will be rendered irrelevant by Christ. You're damned by works, or would be, but not saved by them. It's like Pure Land Buddhism. Amitabha Buddha's Dharma vow only has any meaning if you have karmic burdens that you need him to take on. Christianity only has meaning if you're going to receive a judgment—why the fuck bother with a Savior if you don't need to be saved? Heaven is not a reward because "reward" implies earning; it's a gift. You talk about my previous posts "twisting rhetoric"?! You fail to grasp a fairly basic point about a religion that's not exactly fucking obscure.

Oh, and now you repeat things back to me that I said, and it's a point against me? You'll recall I said that Christianity is about things nobody understands, while Cargo Cults aren't; now you just said it back to me. Are you disingenuous, or did you actually forget I had said that? Anyway I was referring to the Golden Bough theory, that religions arose as explanations of natural phenomena, which the current version basically implies. But it's been debunked to hell and back. Most gods actually arise as personalities first, their nature-associations coming much later—what, exactly, is the Navajos' Talking God the god of? He can't even talk, so it's not that.

Anyway, the version of the description that I wrote perfectly incapsulates the problem about that interpretation of a Cargo Cult—that they're unsophisticated savages who have to see everything as magic, a la Clarke's Law for Girls' Toys—without repeating that Golden Bough bullshit. And without saying that Christianity is the kind of religion that only arises from a society in turmoil, which is what Cargo Cults are.

And hey, more than 383,000 websites think "lead" stays "lead" rather than becoming "led" for the past tense, so...nothing, about that, really.
Evilest_Tim
04:41:44 AM May 6th 2010
edited by Evilest_Tim
Thing is, you're not right about any of them. Christians aren't a hive mind, they're people, and each one is different in what beliefs they hold and do not hold; there are gay Catholics, Mormons who acknowledge all the silly historical errors in the Book of Mormon, and plenty of people who don't go to church but still hold beliefs that say they ought to. It's like claiming yourself able to speak on behalf of all whites or all liberals; meaningless puffing-up of a point.

Basic reading comprehension: I said the real cargo cults had the common gross features of a messianic movement (and listed such, which you cunningly ignored), which they do. You haven't refuted that. It seems more like you're offended at what you read into my comment than at what I actually wrote; maybe if you focus on what I'm saying rather than what you want me to be saying this conversation will be easier.

Ah, right. It's nice that you admit you were just throwing out irrelevant crap you weren't prepared to explain to try to make yourself look intelligent. That's useful.

Jesus is believed to be a prophet by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what else he is (in Judaism, a false prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You're just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn't one; it should be fairly clear that there is a definition of "prophet" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn't that rare; you'll find plenty of Christians who prefer the "do unto others" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it's works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

Mat 16:27 "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a reward.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things seemed supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You're into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. Most religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God's name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it (thunder, volcanos and massive floods being favourites). That's what the trope's about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.

The unfortunate implication is not that people would do this, since historically people have done so many times, but that this is usually played up to show how stupid they are, even though more or less every "proper" religion has done the same thing at least once. It's also admittedly often the case that the technology isn't nearly impressive enough to warrant the treatment it gets; to use the classic example, I really don't see any real-world people having to turn to the actions of all-powerful entities to explain an extremely camp robot who can't bend his arms or knees properly (indeed, you've just given me the image of an Ewok Rabbi telling Luke what a crap golem he has). There's a bit of extra Unfortunate in that 90% of the time the natives happen to have some oddly specific myth about the thing in question, despite that by all accounts even the source of this idea, the Aztecs, didn't actually think Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.
TominAZ
08:25:16 PM May 6th 2010
Just one point, and then I'm out. Christians are individuals, but Christianity is a doctrine. You either accept it or don't, and if you don't, you aren't one. Socialism is an economic theory—if you don't believe the state should own the means of production, you aren't a socialist. That appears to be hard for you to grasp, but I quit. I'm not certified in early childhood education.

Fuck it; do whatever you want.
Evilest_Tim
12:38:10 AM May 7th 2010
Under that definition Protestants aren't Christians because they didn't accept Catholic doctrine. Religion is a whole lot more flexible than that.
TBeholder
03:34:14 AM May 24th 2010
It appears someone is towing a donkey. By the ears.
71.82.105.109
05:22:15 PM Dec 2nd 2010
Poor Unfortunate Implications...

As a child I did not notice the some-what "Anti-German" mesages in the Rankin-Bass classic Santa Claus is coming to Town, until I saw images of the famous yodeler Franzl Lang...did you ever come to realize that he wears leaderhozen....did they do it on purpous...was it intended, the world may never know...
RosesSpindle
02:41:50 PM Aug 26th 2012
edited by RosesSpindle
Shoot. Ignore this post; I accidentally clicked the wrong button.
immortalfrieza
10:30:39 PM Feb 24th 2013
edited by immortalfrieza
Oops, I wanted to create a new topic.
back to Main/UnfortunateImplications

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy