Discussion YMMV / LilyOrchard

Agreed. Also far more on broken base particularly on her Steven Universe video

A lot of what you said makes sense but I'd advise against using her deadname in any context, it's just not cool.

"She Panned It, Now She Sucks" isn't intended for that. It's intended for visceral audience reaction to the panning of a work regardless of whether said reaction is rational or not. TV Tropes is not a place for rebuttals to a work unless it falls in line with an appropriate trope

Can't they just unlock it and ban Peet if this continues? That seems like the most logical and reasonable way to go about it.

Can you notify the moderators about that? Because, this is continuing to be such a huge problem, yet nothing with all of it has ever been addressed in such a way.

However, I wasn't the one who added the Jerkass Has a Point entry in the first place, it's from someone by the username of Krspace T, who I presume is a Lily Peet fan who also hates Josh.

The only thing I added there, was to give a detailed counter argument that disproves the person's claims that Josh wasn't a "real Marine, and not really military".

If you still don't believe me, I suggest checking out Josh's latest video on Lily Peet, in order to hear out his side of the story on the before and after of their falling out.

I happen to like both of them, look at my youtube account and you'll see I subscribe to both of them.

I just felt like the line was worth putting in because there is an argument to be made of how much of a military person Josh is.

Still, Josh actually has clarified on how you can still be considered a member of the military, when being in the position of a band group, in his latest video talking about what happened before and after the falling out.

Yeahhhhhhhhhh... you realize the cut example had no indication what you're talking about. Seriously. None. I have no idea how that's relevant to anything.

It's relevant because since Lily posted her Glass of Water episode "Guard Break", there was a storm of controversy with how her fans were trashing Josh once they saw that video, saying things like he's "not an actual Marine". Which ultimately was the straw that broke the camel's back, and what led to Josh doing his latest video where he responds to Lily.

Though, if I didn't make that clear beforehand, I apologize.

Who is lark speaking to

Me

Everyone involved in this, really.

See that is extremely key context there. When I first read and pulled the example, I thought it was the opposite and that Lily was saying his marine-ness made his opinion invalid or something.

Remember, the pages should be readable for someone who is unfamiliar with the work.

The obvious solution is to link the aforementioned episode of Glass of Water on the words "but her recent issues with Josh Scorcher" with the relevant timestamp and the video where he explains it onto the words "Josh actually has gone into detail".

Got redeleted. Which is technically an edit war.

But seriously, "Right-wing viewpoints" and "Anti-SJW viewpoints" are not the same thing. There's overlap, sure, but there are plenty of right-wingers who aren't opposed to women's rights and plenty of MRA's who consider themselves left-wing.

I am well aware that there are plenty of MRA's who consider themselves left wing. I like to think of myself as "Big Boned" rather than "Fat." Reality says otherwise.

Being against social justice or feminism (the real social justice and feminism, not the strawman that message boards like to make of the two) is an inherently right-wing viewpoint. Which is already covered in the article. Being against the strawman that most self proclaimed "Anti SJW's" are is covered under "Message board culture."

In short: Yes they are the same thing. You interpreting that as an insult isn't anybody's problem but your own.

That's just... inaccurate, though. Like I said, there's overlap, even significant overlap between the two. But they're not necessarily intrinsically linked. Anti-feminism is a far, far broader thing than you seem to realize and includes those without a political affiliation (of which there are many), people who would mostly be left-wing but disagree on some issues, or those that operate on a non left/right spectrum (after all, I don't think anyone would call ISIS right-wing but they're certainly anti-feminist).

Also reeeeeeeeeeeally not sure where "interpreting that as an insult" is coming from, or even bringing me into this is coming from.

Now if Lily conflates the two, that would be worth expanding the entry to explain that. Because they really, really are not the same thing.

They really are the same thing. The closest thing to a different label you're going to get is "Neoreactionary" and that's a far more deriding term than the Left/Right spectrum anyway.

So you're just going to go "no, it is." Got it.

I know I'm repeating myself, but despite you going "it is," being anti-feminist isn't a tenet of being right wing. Nor is it a quality that is exclusively right-wing. Is there overlap? Assuredly. But that's like saying "black people and Obama supporters" would qualify as the same thing. Most black people supported Obama, but not all. And there are still plenty of supporters who aren't black.

The only reason the same entry should consider them the same thing would be if Lily either: considers them the same thing; or specifically calls out anti-feminism as her issue with the right-wing. And that fact would have to be explained. But as-is, you're actively trying to keep information off the page and I genuinely can't figure out why. It's not like it's insulting, it's just striving to be less clear.

[long paragraph explaining why anti-fem and right wing are not the same thing]

"No, they're the same thing"

Fine. The entry was changed from "Right Wing politicians and viewpoints" to "Right wing and Reactionary viewpoints."

I don't particularly understand what edits are being discussed, but I can tell you that the reactionary—conservative—progressive—radical scale are not fixed. They represent political roles. The reactionary wants to turn back time. The conservative wants to keep things the same. The progressive wants to continue forward.

Contrast feminism, which is a stance on a specific issue. The issue of how women should be treated.

So to summarise, what progressive and conservative specifically entail believing change between different time periods and different locations on earth. Feminism always entails believing the same thing.

Is feminism usually progressive? Yes. But they are clearly not the same thing at all. (left wing is a synonym for progressive)

The edit being discussed is that somebody wants to add "Anti Feminism" to the acceptable targets when "Right Wing Politicans and Viewpoints" are already there.

In the context of Lily's videos, whenever she mocks "Anti Feminism" she is almost universally referring to hate groups like Return of Kings, the Alt Right, Gamergate, ect. Groups that are very clearly right wing and oppose feminism either out of a knee-jerk reaction to criticism, genuine investment in maintaining the status quo, or because they get their knowledge of feminism from conspiracy theorists.

In the vast majority of cases (and the entirety of cases mentioned in the previous paragraph), Anti Feminism is a right wing viewpoint, and doesn't needed to be added to the article.

Why do you not want it to explicitly say "Anti-Feminism?"

^^ So, in all seriousness, have you been reading my posts?

Because I specifically said that if Lily is conflating "right-wing viewpoints" and "anti-feminist movements" then they can be combined, but it would be explained.

Instead, you choose to passive-aggressively readd it with as little context as possible. In fact it's still a Zero Context Example. Between the entry you deleted and your posts in this discussion, there's more than enough for ample context.

So I ask you why are you trying to make this entry as vague as possible? None of this would have happened if context was provided on the original "right-wing viewpoints" entry. I get (and very much respect) trying to keep the page neutral and remove creator-bashing. I honestly appreciate most of what you've done for this page. But I find myself baffled by your decisions on this matter.

EDIT: Edited to clarify whom I'm addressing.

Larkmarn, you're addressing ME there.

I think it's unnecessarily redundant, and Lily has only spoken about Anti Feminism once or twice. While her Glass of Water videos frequently come down against the idea of social justice being a bad thing, this particular topic comes up relatively infrequently and doesn't warrant being marked an "Acceptable Target" within the context of the creator's work.

To somewhat add a point to this regarding Alchorative making sure their own "version" of this page is the only one allowed up. I put an entry on there on there last night regarding "Tara Callie", which Alc took down as "being jossed repeatedly". No it hasn't◊. That's a screenshot of the specific incident I was talking about. Lily being banned from derpibooru for using sockpuppets including one named Tara Callie.

ED is not a reliable source, and I would not trust it not to photoshop images. I agree with alchorative's decision if that is the only evidence you're presenting. Please show me a more reliable source.

Even if it were a reliable source (and oh my god it is not), that's importing drama and troping the person's personal activities, not their work. It really shouldn't be there.

^^^ Redundant to what? I am getting increasingly confused by your behavior, considering as part of this you deleted the "anti-SJW-people" acceptable target and are now saying that she frequently comes down against the idea of anti-SJW people.

Regarding lilithmercy's addition, as The One Who Tropes pointed out "Encyclopedia Dramatica" is not a reliable source. There have been about a dozen people desperately trying to smear Lily's reputation for a while (it's the reason she has an ED page in the first place) and as such most of the accusations made against her are put into question. Sockpuppeting is impossible to pin to a specific individual without that person's IP Address anyway. That could be literally anybody for all we know.

Even so, one of Lily's friends getting into a spat with another and then being accused of being Lily herself isn't relevant to her Youtube work, which is what this page is for.

As for Larkman, the basis for this is simple: I am not convinced that "Anti Feminism" and "Anti Social Justice" are not right wing viewpoints, of which is already on the article.

Sorry, they're not. Please read Sargon Of Akkad's page. A critic of feminism who ISN'T right wing.

Even if you think they are (they're not), why are you insistent on making as little context as possible, though? Like I said, this disagreement would have never occurred if, rather than saying "they're the same" and deleting anything resembling context, you had, say, merged the examples or explained that Lily considers them the same.

Even if someone agrees with your point, you're actively making ZC Es. And That's Terrible.

I'm sick of having this conversation with somebody else every other week, so fine. Since it clearly means that much to you, "Anti Feminists and other assorted Neoreactionaries" has been added.

You're... really not reading my posts, are you?

I'm reading them, but I've had this conversation with five other people and have no patience for it anymore. You're not the first person to complain about anti feminism or anti social justice being conflated with Conservatives.

Weird, it's almost like they're not the same thing.

And again, you could sidestep the issue in the future by actually following the rules of the wiki and not making the examples zero context. Seems like everyone wins on that one.

I'm going to restore the earlier example gives a lot more actual context.

I'm removing it entirely as well as several other examples because on reflection Lily has only ever talked about either of those things sporadically and never as much or as thoroughly as she has some of the examples on the list and doesn't warrant being labeled an "Acceptable Target." Otherwise we may as well put in "People who like episodes she criticizes" or "Rooster Teeth."

You're... not even saying that it doesn't apply, just that it doesn't occur as frequently as other things. Yet you're still saying that it does happen multiple times and not claiming that she ever says anything to say that they're not an Acceptable Target.

Hell, something need only be mentioned as an Acceptable Target once as long as there's no mention of them not being an acceptable target.

And again, you're edit-warring. And ignoring discussion. Which is not cool.

Point of order: If something happens once in a work, it happens in the work. Very rarely happening or not.

And stop edit warring you two. Bad tropers!

Also, can someone fix up the zero context examples under acceptable targets? Those are badwrong and need to be fixed.

I don't actually follow the work. I only know that rules are being broken and am responding to that. And my edits aren't really edit-warring, given I announce them beforehand, look for feedback both here and on ATT, and wait time before making them.

And yes. They are ZC Es. But it seems people who watch the videos have no desire to fix them.

It is edit warring to make changes without consensus. Which is a bannable offence.

We had consensus for the reversions I made. Literally every person who chimed in was against the edits made

... they were just immediately undone in a spectacular display of Moving the Goalposts.

Per ATT, restoring Acceptable Targets examples, but commenting out the ones without sufficient context.

I'd just like to point out for the record that ED bends the truth a bit sometimes but they're usually not liars (and I think ED is a hive of scum and villainy myself). Besides, if you people had bothered to fact check the information (which I would recommend always doing when dealing with controversial topics on things coming from BOTH sides), you'd know they weren't lying about Peet's sockpuppets on Derpibooru anyway: https://www.derpibooru.org/434414#comment_1859030

The admins here could probably even ask them for the IP.

Edit: BTW, The Frowning Pony apparently knows how to detect VPN excuse trickery too.

... what are the obvious reasons that you speak of?

But yes, that should go for being complete natter and violating example indentation. It could go under Harsher in Hindsight, though. Real-life events can inform HIH (and usually do, honestly).

The reason is that I AM Lily and am too inherently biased to make edits to my own page. But this stuck out to me as a particularly strange addition.

To Larkmarn, then shouldn't both the Tear Jerker entries be removed, since the information only comes from both Lily's blog and real-life events, and not the works themselves? Or at the very least, the newly added entry be instead put into the Harsher in Hindsight category?

Yeah, seems like Tearjerker should go entirely.