11:17:39 AM Jan 2nd 2014
I know there's no longer types 1 and 2 for this trope, but I can think of a scenario similar to "Type 1": in which one is naturally a Nice Guy, but the other is a Jerk with a Heart of Gold who frequently claims "I Was Just Passing Through" to the point of bordering on a certain archetype. Basically, one does not want to admit they like the other, but the other knows full well of their true intent, without there being a misunderstanding on anyone's part. I guess it's a "This trope mostly dished out by person B to person A, but person A understands that's just their way, and that B would no sooner be Taking the Bullet for A and then deny in their Last Words that it meant anything,"
05:12:04 AM Oct 18th 2013
Can we talk about the fact that the quote at the top of the page is from a Troper and that's terrible and we should all feel bad about having let that happen?
09:52:54 AM Sep 29th 2012
edited by player2start
edited by player2start
Okay, this page is just a mess. I'm going to go ahead and try to clean it up, make the description more in line with the former "type two" than the current "type one" emphasis. As I understand it, "type two" involved both parties exchanging in bickering, banter, snark, insults, etc. with the clear understanding that they were friends regardless of what was being said. To me, this fits the trope to a tee. The "type one" version, where one friend is vitriolic and the other is completely oblivious seems too one-sided to apply to this trope, and should be considered another one entirely. These friendships may be more in line with Selective Obliviousness, Horrible Judge of Character, The Friend Nobody Likes, Hypocritical Heartwarming, Odd Friendship, Odd Couple, Opposites Attract, Cloudcuckoolander's Minder, Token Evil Teammate, The Gadfly, or even Troll (see Sliding Scale Of Troll Cruelty). I'm not sure if there's any more relevent trope to cover this specific type of friendship though. In summation, I'm going to alter the introduction to fit the former type two, which seems to be the more relevant description.
10:40:55 AM Aug 8th 2012
I think the picture should change to Calvin and Hobbes instead of Betty and Veronica. I mean, besides over Archie, they rarely fight. Calvin and Hobbes on the other hand fight over almost every thing.
03:00:11 PM Jun 1st 2012
I still don't understand what happened here. The page got split into two tropes, but the one this page is describing doesn't match the title at all, and the other one doesn't even seem to exist? Can we at least get it linked in the main page?
01:56:14 PM Mar 17th 2012
I just noticed the change. The two original types were as follows: Type 1: This is a strange and horrifying hybrid between Selective Obliviousness and Mad Love; Pete either thinks Steve's vitriol is Spy Speak for "You're my bestest friend! I like puppies!", covering for their "shyness" at admitting friendship, or Pete is just too dense to know better. Sometimes, whether Steve actually likes Pete is an open question. Rarely, Pete will break down and yell at Steve with "Do You Think I Can't Feel?!" When this happens, it's either because Steve has crossed the line with some remark or act, or Pete is getting a lot of stress from somewhere else. Steve will usually show his soft side at this point. Type 2: Then there are cases where both friends duke it out on equal terms, heaping insults on each other that could make the Actual Pacifist start chopping off heads. But underneath the verbal fencing is a rock-solid friendship that no Smug Snake could hope to chip at. A Friend in Need may be needed to make this manifest. Often, both have opposite morals, personalities, or fighting ability which is presumably the cause of the vitriol (or maybe it's just because they're both Deadpan Snarkers). Such characters may go for a Friends All Along fight if one is introduced before the other. This trope can often serve as a warning that something may be wrong as well. When one of the Vitriolic Best Buds suddenly stops responding to insults or flinging barbs of their own, the other may pick up on the sudden change in behavior as a sign that something is not right. polutropon said that 95% were type two—but the page description suggests the trope is type 1! Something seems amiss.
08:02:57 AM May 1st 2012
If you're going to rewrite it to cover only one of the types, you need to actually do so, provide a link to a page for the other type, and move all of the references to the moved type over to the new page, and then remove all references to the "types". It has now been, from what I can tell, a couple of months since the text describing the types were removed, but there's no sign of which type is actually being considered the type for this page, nor where one might look for the other type. If a new page for one of the types is currently travelling through YKTTW, then this page should have been left untouched until that page is launched.
03:12:26 AM Mar 2nd 2012
Jesus fuck what a clusterfuck of abysmal this page is. Ok: bureaucracy fellation time again. Anybody who objects to repairing the screaming trainwreck of mangled jargon-wank this page is trying desperately to be, speak now or forever hold your peace.
10:27:05 AM Jan 22nd 2012
"Actually, this is an invented trope spread by Leftist bigots. Real American patriots and Real Frenchmen and -women are happiest when they run their own countries their own way, and they tell you where to put your advice in the most graphic way possible. The bigots spread lies about no "universal health care" in America, blatantly ignoring Medicaid and Medicare, to try and frighten the European poor. Meanwhile, though few European countries have single-payer health care, they constantly tell Americans that "all the Europeans" are doing it. Sick, really." Not that I have anything against political opinions/facts (or worse still instilling "political correctness gone mad"), I'm just worried that this may lead to flame bait material, for example the term "Leftist bigots", "sick really." and how the writer emphasizes the fearmongering. In the current political environment, there is a lot of potential for this to be countered or shit like that. Is it possible for there to be a more neutral stance?
06:18:03 PM Jul 26th 2010
Okay, I think we should just split this page. These two "versions" seem way too different to be the same thing.
06:50:07 PM Aug 28th 2010
Split into two tropes, or into two sections, like some other pages have?