Is this an example?

How so? Drunk on the Dark Side is a different trope from Superpowered Evil Side, for the record; what you're saying seems to be the former rather than the latter to me.

edited 16th Oct '16 4:10:08 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

That just has "drunk" in the name. It's not related to what I said.

Check out my fanfiction!

Reposting these from the previous page so they don't get lost:

YMMV.Ex Machina:

• "Funny Aneurysm" Moment: One of the lyrics of the song that plays in the dance scene is "work your fingers to the bone". Later when Caleb watches the video Jade banging her arms on the door, her fingers are the first to disintegrate. Additionally, her arms worked to the bone.

YMMV.The Fault In Our Stars:

• Narm: Hazel's infinity quote^note There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There's .1 and .12 and .112 and an infinite collection of others. Of course, there is a bigger infinite set of numbers between 0 and 2, or between 0 and a million. Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. A writer we used to like taught us that. There are days, many of them, when I resent the size of my unbounded set. I want more numbers than I'm likely to get, and God, I want more numbers for Augustus Waters than he got. But, Gus, my love, I cannot tell you how thankful I am for our little infinity. I wouldn't trade it for the world. You gave me a forever within the numbered days, and I'm grateful. might lose its impact and become laughable when you learn that it's mathematically incorrect. While some infinities are bigger than other infinities - the set of all rational numbers is for instance smaller than the set of all real numbers - the intervals [0, 1], [0, 2] and [0, 1000000] actually contain the same amount of real numbers.

And you still haven't explained how your analogy works. You don't get a Superpowered Alter Ego (let alone a Superpowered Evil Side) by getting drunk; hell, Superpowered Alter Ego isn't "getting superpowers gives you a Split Personality", it's "getting a Split Personality can give you superpowers, but they're only accessible by said Split Personality" (then again, the line between the two can get blurry at times).

edited 16th Oct '16 7:17:14 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Why are you so hung up on getting drunk? I used an analogy of how being drunk can impact your personality, not that getting drunk was specifically something that gave you superpowers or made you evil. As even you said, it's an analogy, not an example.

Also, contrary to what Superpowered Alter Ego claims, it's not a supertrope to Superpowered Evil Side, since the latter doesn't require any super powers, so there's no point in you bringing that up.

Superpowered Evil Side can mean that the character just has a relaxed morality. It can still be the same personality with some tweaks.

Either way, it's not really important to the original question.

Check out my fanfiction!

Superpowered Alter Ego was created expressly to serve as a supertrope to Superpowered Evil Side. I was there when that happened, even if I wasn't actually involved in the creation process; check the draft for yourself.

As for the line in Superpowered Evil Side that says it's not necessary for the character to have superpowers, that pretty much takes away what sets the trope apart from Enemy Within, and so has no business being part of the description/definition. I have no idea who added that in, and unfortunately the history log doesn't go further back than May 2013, so the identity of the editor in question is lost to us forever.

It is indirectly important because your own response to said question gives an incorrect impression of the nature of Superpowered Evil Side. If one doesn't properly understand what Superpowered Evil Side is, then one can't give a proper answer to a question about it.

edited 16th Oct '16 8:12:35 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

So I just ran into a questionable example on Principles Zealot:

I can't see how this is an example of Principles Zealot, it's more an example of just plain Ax-Crazy or Sadist Teacher. Thoughts?

Asked on September 14, asked on Sept. 29, received no answer...I'll give it one more shot.

A person drinks a toast in memory of someone dead or departed. They pour two glasses, but only drink one.

Is this...anything? It feels like Libation for the Dead but that specifies the practice of pouring a drink on the ground.

That is more a question for Trope Finder.

edited 16th Oct '16 11:59:11 PM by Memers

Well, this thread is titled "Is This An Example?" So, is the scenario I describe above an example of Libation for the Dead?

No, because it seems to be a variation on To Absent Friends, which is a Sister Trope of Libation for the Dead.

edited 17th Oct '16 6:53:29 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

To Absent Friends, that's it, thank you.

Its been 3 days, could someone take a look at the examples I posted above x10

No offense (especially since I'm pretty sure you're finding these rather than proposing them yourself), but I suspect the reason why you tend not to get feedback on your examples is that they're often complaining YMMV stuff that most of the regular contributors here hate to deal with.

Is the following example a correct use of Irony:

• Irony:
  • The main quote that got Grace in trouble-Matthew 5:44, "But I tell you, love thy enemies and pray for those who persecute you"-is clearly not practiced in this film as the film portrays their enemies in the most slanderous light and spreads outright paranoid lies about them.
  • The fact this film exists at all. The first film was supposed to prove that "God's Not Dead" and supposedly it did somehow. However since they are still trying to prove God's Not Dead means that everything that happened in the first film was utterly pointless.
  • The film comes out on April Fools' Day. Many commenters have made jokes that the film itself is stating it's a big joke to Christians.
  • This film gives the indication of Christians being a minority of sorts, with atheists pushing their viewpoint on them. Christianity is the majority faith in the US, and fundamentalist Christians have often been accused of forcing their religion on others, with atheists being the minority. Added to this is the fact that most Christian universities won't even accept a student or teacher into the school without them declaring that they believe in Christian doctrine (the same thing the original film has an atheist do, though there are no known cases of that) and several states legally bar atheists from holding public office (these laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, but nonetheless nonbeliever politicians have faced legal challenges under them, and in any case are unelectable in most areas).
  • In a broader sense, the movie's portrayal of Christians as a minority being bullied by mean atheists is undercut by the movie's very existence: God's Not Dead 2, after all, is a film created by Christians that pulls no punches in portraying every atheist character in the most negative light possible. It takes a special kind of script to claim victimhood while simultaneously and uniformly slandering those it points out as the aggressors.
  • Many viewers have observed that in the first movie all Josh had to do was inform a higher up of what Raddison was doing to get it to stop. Instead they invoke that here in an instance where the teacher wasn't trying to convert someone to their belief and act as if it was terrible that she wasn't allowed to do that.
  • The first film kicks off because Josh is against his teacher trying to deny Christianity. In this film a kid that looks almost like Josh kicks off the film by being against his teacher preaching about Christianity.
  • The film slanders atheists by showing Martin's father disowning his son for becoming a Christian. The irony being that Christians (and other devoutly religious people) are guilty of this as well.
  • The film shows a crowd of angry people yelling out "Teach Don't Preach" and seen as terrible people for it. If that teacher preached about any other religion aside from Christianity, we'd expect the Christians to be saying the same thing (and this has indeed happened in Real Life).
  • The atheist parents are seen as vile for wanting the teacher to stick to teaching her class and not try to push her Christian belief on their daughter. Which is the exact same thing Radisson was doing in the first film but since it's Christianity Grace is portrayed in the right.
  • This along with the statement that Christianity should be seen above the law, forcing Christianity in any form of government. Yet most Christians are against Sharia law, which does exactly that.
  • Using the same "arguments" in the court scenes, one could just as validly validate the possible existence of other cosmic entities and deities one might believe exist. Yet for some reason, everyone in the movie forgot (or chose to ignore) that and instead focused their belief in the Christian god exclusively.
  • The film outright suggests that atheists wish to exterminate Christians. Oh the dark irony of that.
  • Less dark, but still hilarious, is the fact that during the lawyer's final rant, he suggests that it will soon be illegal for public servants and politicians to be Christians. In fact, 92 percent of the House and Senate are Christians and not a single one is openly an Atheist.

edited 23rd Oct '16 11:08:20 AM by MagBas

I find most of that to be about hypocricy, not irony. And it has a very complainy undertone, as well as reaching for some straws. Some of it are assumptions, some audience reactions, and a whole bunch of cherry picking some acts of some groups of Christians and applying it to every single Christian.

Not sure the wiki would lose anything of value by cutting the entire thing.

Check out my fanfiction!

Okay, thanks.

Is this an example when it comes to Teddie from Persona 4?:

• Deuteragonist: He's been working as a part of the team for as long as the initial three, and Adachi serves as a Shadow Archetype to him, like with Yu. It's to the point where his social link levels up automatically, like the Investigation Team and Seekers of Truth links. On top of all that, he's the only member of the team that visits the Velvet Room outside of Yu himself (it's where he and Yu have the final heart to heart that maxes out the Star Social Link, in fact). As one final confirmation of his status as this, he is the one to deliver the game's closing narration.

None of what's in the entry actually tells me he's a Deuteragonist. How does the story as a whole focus on him? How does he act separately from the protagonist?

Probably a lot of misuse (and a ton of Zero Context Examples) on the page, though.

Check out my fanfiction!

No Ted is not the Deuteragonist, that position belongs to Naoto as she is pretty much the counterpart investigator to the team and when she joins she takes over almost the entire investigation. she is literally the second most important character in the game at every turn after she is introduced.

Ted really is just the Mentor Mascot character that got a lot more focus than most but still less than many members of the cast and a lot of hanging threads.

edited 24th Oct '16 5:21:46 PM by Memers

Does this sound like an inversion of Breast Attack?

• Inverted in Keijo!!!!!!!!, where breasts attack you. Then there's Nozomi's "Bust to Bust Attack", where she strikes an opponent's breasts with her own breasts.

It's not really an inversion as breasts are still being attacked, just by other breasts and asses. It would be more of a form of weaponized inversion of Funbag Airbag, or Chest Slam / Chest Bump if those exist.

Even though the actual Funbag Airbag so far in Keijo is someone's ass which is an interesting twist... but Nozomi said it smelled nice in the manga!

Edit: there are more inverted FunbagAirbags this season too.◊

edited 24th Oct '16 6:01:33 PM by Memers

From Step Brothers:

• Double Standard Rape: Female on Male: Applies at least the first time Alice has sex with Dale... in which she coerces him by cornering him in the men's room. It ends with him telling her he likes her and thinks she's incredible. Although stunned by the surprise encounter, he seems pretty unfazed by the fact that he was pretty much just raped. Later, as shown in the unrated edition, they have a somewhat more mutually consensual encounter - it seems at that point he has the option of escaping but chooses otherwise.

Now obviously, the Unfortunate Implications sinkhole has to go, but the rest seems... iffy. In that it's about as rape-y as "any time someone explicitly doesn't say 'I consent to this activity.'" It does mention cornering and coercing, though I genuinely don't understand how "coerce" can apply there.

Haven't seen the scene in question, mind you. I'm more questioning the writeup.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Well, the example implies that if the genders were reversed, people would call it rape. And I've heard enough people saying it is rape in those circumstances, so I wouldn't exactly call it invalid without knowing more about it than what's written here.

Check out my fanfiction!

Ayyyy, that is one of those tricky situations that depends so much on context. Was consent implied even if not verbally given? Is that established as an issue explored by the work in question? Are we expecting this kind of work to be up to speed on the latest progressive cultural positions on consent? Are there unbiased third-party citations depicting the scene as rape, or potentially rape were the genders reversed?

edited 26th Oct '16 7:03:51 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"