x2 No, I'd say they're completely separate. You can still be unskilled if you just train for strength, like being a pure weight trainer or something.
x4 Okay I think you need to calm down. I don't see what was insulting about pointing out the incorrect trope usage.
Only if you're being completely literal minded about it. The only one making direct accusations about people is you, right now, by ascribing a completely sinister motive to what other people are saying. Swap "fetishism" for "fixation".
edited 16th Sep '17 5:47:49 PM by Saiga
And I don't think it's the same anyway. Saiga hasn't said that all fights should just come down to pure strength, or that underdogs or Weak, but Skilled can't be pulled off well. Just that how Super does it an what a lot of fans want done, wouldn't be done well. YMMV on that of course, but that's how I see it.
Pushover, by comparison has more or less said they don't really care how these things are done as long as the characters they like are doing them. Which, again, YMMV, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but they often seem unable to get that not everyone likes the same characters or things as they do.
Wow sick of this. Lets talk about something new.
In fact, I'd say we need to beat up whoever keeps bringing this up, but then I'd have to kick my own ass, and that'd just be awkward.
So...lets talk about the new episode.
One Strip! One Strip!It's not that underdogs are overused, it's that having the characters you sympathize with be underdogs is the only way to write a compelling story. Even in One Punch Man, the conflict in which Saitama is the underdog isn't "will he be able to defeat this opponents", it's "will he improve his quality of life with having friends and getting a job and break through his depression".
Trust me, I'm taking writing classes in college. No-one wants to watch a story about someone who never experiences any obsticles in whatever the major conflict of the story is. In a story like Dragon Ball, which is mostly battle-oriented, the characters NEED to be at a disadvantage in physical power in order for the story to be compelling.
Even Dragon Ball Z has the characters CONSTANTLY be the underdogs. From Goku and Piccolo being weaker than Raditz, the Humans and Piccolo being weaker than Nappa, to Goku being weaker than Vegeta, to everyone being weaker than Freeza, to everyone being weaker than the Androids and then Cell, to everyone being weaker than Buu. The only difference between then and now is that before, Toriyama almost exclusively used transformations to justify the characters being able to fight against their stronger opponent and now, he's mixing techniques in with transformations.
Given that I was the third person on the last page to point out that your language was bothering them, you know that's not true.
There's nothing more sinister going on here that people getting too carried away in the condescension that, to be honest, naturally happens in debates like this. As a person who engages in debates all the time, I understand that it happens all the time and it's easy to dip into. And I also understand the need to dial it back.
edited 16th Sep '17 5:54:21 PM by KnownUnknown
I'm not going to take your word for it just because you're taking writing classes. I've already done that, and it is not the be-all end-all of writing.
I think you're confusing being an underdog for having conflict. Especially evident in your example for Saitama - he is not an underdog, but he has internal conflict. If you count Saitama as an underdog for having internal conflict, the phrase becomes meaningless.
As for the characters needing a disadvantage in power for things to be interesting - no, they don't, that's incredibly silly. We have actually seen plenty of examples where this is not the case without it removing conflict from the story. Villains can have an edge in other ways, if they even need one. Goku has total superiority over Nappa, but Nappa still poses a threat by going after Gohan and Kuririn. Vegeta has superiority over Cell, but his own ego is exploited to create conflict.
And as you've pointed out, transformations (and power ups) can cause underdogs to win by shifting the power balance. Suddenly, the hero isn't the underdog in that situation. But that doesn't mean the rest of the fight can't be compelling.
![]()
No, it is. You were the only one to add the direct accusation that my motive was to call people "delusional".
edited 16th Sep '17 5:55:35 PM by Saiga
Are they gonna take a break from fighting for 2 minutes...or does the tournament have to be over for that to happen?
Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.By calling people who disagree with you fetishists, you're conflating their opinions with their character or temperament, so it's ad hominem, yeah.
![]()
It's admittedly a synonym, but it fits. Calling someone a fetishist is implying that they're only taking an opinion because they're fixated on the idea, rather than because they legitimately have claim to its merit.
edited 16th Sep '17 5:57:01 PM by KnownUnknown
Different words have different connotations, so probably not (well, someone might have criticized the use of the term "fixation", but on validity grounds rather than additional excessiveness grounds). You didn't use fixation or preference, I notice, so I wonder where the use of the word "fetishist" came from.
edited 16th Sep '17 5:59:41 PM by KnownUnknown
I feel like this conversation might go places none of us want if it keeps going.
One Strip! One Strip!![]()
![]()
![]()
To be clear, I only pointed it out as part of a larger response to a claim that some people are not considering others' opinions and others haven't, as a sign that the conversation as a whole had gotten to that point in general. The intent was to poke at the fact that everyone's arguments here are to such a point that accusing a single person of being opinionated wasn't fair.
Then when a reply attempting to refute that point specifically (iirc, starting with a claim that it wasn't a sign of being opinionated because other people use "wank" the same way), I pursued it. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have, since this whole thing has been getting increasingly off topic ever since.
In fact, I actually think focusing on the word itself is misleading - it's not a curse or anything, nor was it the reason for the state of the thread, and it's not like it or the sentiment behind it shouldn't be used in conversation.
edited 16th Sep '17 6:19:47 PM by KnownUnknown

I don't think the two tropes are entirely unrelated. A character can often be Unskilled, but Strong simply by virtue of their genetics. Look at Freeza; he never trained at all prior to Resurrection F, but he still was able to decimate all our heroes by virtue of being born that much stronger than everybody else. But I'll admit that I probably could've expressed myself better.
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!