Getting Crap Past the Radar cleanup

Why wouldn't post-censorship or self-censorship examples that otherwise fit count?

If it wasn't caught the first time around but was caught later, I think it could still count (EDIT: unless it was a long time later and standards on what's considered objectionable have changed). Also, just because kids wouldn't understand it doesn't disqualify it as GCPTR; most "crap," by definition, is not expected to be understood by kids.

Edited by rjd1922 on Jun 15th 2019 at 6:07:19 AM

What does Fighteer think?

If a later version of the product removed the bits that were included the first time around, it's definitely evidence that something was gotten past the radar.

The most important difference between GCPTR and Parental Bonus is that, in the former, a reasonable adult would feel uncomfortable letting their kids view the content.

PB: "What are you laughing at, Daddy?" "Never you mind, son."
GCPTR: "Daddy, why is that man doing that to that woman?" "Umm, maybe you shouldn't be watching this. What is it rated again?"

What if there was no radar in the first place? Like why couldn't online examples of sneaking something past the ad provider count?

And I already knew the second part about the distinction between Radar and Parental Bonus.

Edited by Lymantria on Jun 15th 2019 at 5:57:54 AM

. Either that or standards changed between the release and the re-release.

In which case it is not an example.

Advertisers do not exercise pre-censorship, so those could not be examples under most circumstances. There are a few cases where online-published content could qualify, however. Sponsored videos usually have to be reviewed before publication by the sponsor to ensure they meet their requirements. Those could count, but only if there is Word of God or equivalent public information that the content violated the sponsorship agreement.

"I can't believe that Dollar Shave Club let me get away with a child pornography joke in that video I did for them!"

Edited by Fighteer on Jun 15th 2019 at 6:27:39 AM

I won't claim to understand what is and isn't Getting Crap Past the Radar, but my understanding is that a more accurate trope name would be "Sneaking Crap Past the Radar".

By definition, anything you put in a work you make yourself is something that you think your audience should be allowed to see; if you didn't, you wouldn't be putting that kind of content in there in the first place. You can't "sneak" crap past your own radar, which is why self-censored works can't have that trope.

Yes. I thought such examples were disallowed, but I guess they aren't.

What about this pothole in the upcoming trope Alternative Joke Interpretation.

The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck: In one of the more famous Parental Bonus moments, a gang of lawmen (pursuing Scrooge based on false information) approach Scrooge's cabin where Goldie has just entered, their comments implying that there's a lot of Belligerent Sexual Tension being worked out in there. Hanging Judge Roy Bean then says whatever's going on in that cabin is not a hanging offense in Texas or anywhere else (Thank Gosh!)◊, which can either be taken as his being grateful that sex isn't illegal, or that he's not legally required to play Moment Killer and face the combined wrath of Scrooge and Goldie.

I removed these examples from Steven Universe since just referencing something family-unfriendly isn't Radar:

• Another video on [Sadie's] shelf is Caligula: the Documentary. It may or may not be a specific reference to the extremely graphic 1979 film, but considering the historical figure's reputation, it's certainly far from family-friendly.
• And a third is First House On the Right, an obvious reference to the in/famous Wes Craven rape-revenge movie "The Last House on the Left".

• When Steven says he hates Kevin, Greg chastises him for using such a strong "four-letter word". His use of "creep" later, and Greg's reaction, has a parallel to a kid using a less inappropriate word instead of a swear around a parent, who isn't fooled.

I'm doubting that the images for either Radar.The Powerpuff Girls 2016 and Radar.Beauty And The Beast count as radar passing.

Well, in The Mysterious Mr. Enter’s own words, the Powerpuff Girls are doing a dance that is meant to sexually attract. If that isn’t Getting Crap Past the Radar, I don’t know what is

That argument is missing the point. Is the content suitable for the rating it was assigned? If yes, then there's no Crap to get past the Radar.

It sounds like we're bringing in a lot of subjective interpretations of this question, which is not the point of the trope.

Agreed. This isn't What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids? In Space!

If it has to be pointed out as "I can't believe we let that slip by" by Word of God I don't think we need any Radar pages, since most of the examples could just be the ones that WOG confirmed and even then, some examples are cutlisted regardless because it's an adult show like The Simpsons or Family Guy.

Edited by Klavice on Jun 20th 2019 at 1:18:33 AM

I assume PPG 2016 is TV-Y7, in which case little girls twerking is definitely toeing the line.

I'm inclined to cut both of these examples from Radar.Steven Universe; we established that animal anuses aren't inappropriate, right?

Super Watermelon Island

• The Watermelon Dog has a visible anus.

Hit the Diamond

• If Non-Humans Lack Attributes wasn't in effect, both Navy and Doc's outfits, especially the latter, would be very risque.

"Toeing the line" is not this trope. Is there any evidence that the scene should have been censored, or that anyone thought that it might have been?

Those others, yeah, cut.

It's an adult oriented dance but it was similar to Sailor Moon in that it wasn't intended to be "sexy" and therefore might fit better under Parental Bonus. And besides, do you really think a five year old is going to see that and think "Oh hey. Twerking! :D"

"Toeing the line" sounds like "arguable" to me.

How is that a Parental Bonus? We don't want to be overly broad with moving examples to Parental Bonus, or the misuse will just be funnelled there. And I think some kids might indeed know what twerking is.

There are people who like to imagine that young children are completely oblivious to the world around them. This could not be farther from the truth. Overlapping in a Venn diagram with those people are those who think that young children should be shielded from anything that is even remotely related to sexuality, obscenity, and so on. They are on a fool's errand.

Unless some censorship board has written down that cartoon characters twerking is inappropriate for six year olds to watch, it is not inappropriate for them by definition. Okay?

It seems to me that the question of what is inappropriate for children is a bit of a red herring. The question isn't "what is appropriate and inappropriate for children."

The question is, "Is there a governing body such as a network, ratings board, etc. that has established a standard for what is appropriate for this work? Has this work managed to exceed that standard despite that governing body's efforts?"

Whether we think that standard is a reasonable one is beside the point.

Edited by HighCrate on Jun 20th 2019 at 6:20:18 AM

Yes, that's correct. What irritates me is people who keep trying to insist that material that does not violate those standards is still inappropriate.

I mean, they're free to have whatever personal standards of appropriateness they choose. Has nothing to do with the trope.