Trump and ROCEJ

I was the one who deleted the Prez Trump entry, for the reasons given. It's perfectly fine in Trivia if sourced.

Found this on Brows Held High:

• "Funny Aneurysm" Moment: Could be Hilarious in Hindsight, but Kyle himself would disagree: in Pinocchio, Kyle compares Benigni goofing around with an Italian politician to Jimmy Fallon and Newt Gingrich. Come 2016, and Fallon is messing with then-candidate Trump's hair.

I don't get the joke.

Also, I've noticed some Trump entries under CassandraTruth.Real Life, should something be done with that?

And from First Installment Wins: "Abraham Lincoln: the first Republican president, and arguably considered to be one of the best Presidents in the US." Should something be done about that?

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I had a question about Harsher in Hindsight, Hilarious in Hindsight, and "Funny Aneurysm" Moment. Answering it would help clean up misuse.

From YMMV.The Legend Of Zelda Breath Of The Wild:

• The Great Plateau is a rather lonely place to begin with, with the Old Man and a few Koroks being the only friendly NPCs around, but it gets even lonelier when the former turns out to be Dead All Along.

Does it count if it takes place within the media (because that sounds like a Intended Audience Reaction), or does it only apply for stories/events that take place after it?

edited 8th Aug '17 1:42:47 PM by Ferot_Dreadnaught

That literally comes off as nonsense. I think it should be cut on those grounds. That said, Brows Held High is not a work of fiction and thus the example can be cut for not meeting the standards set in this thread.

RE :

• Cassandra Truth can be brought to the RL maintenance thread. I suggest you get involved with the discussion there, too, though you don't have to.
• First Installment Wins: You could probably ask in the "Is this an example?" thread. I don't think it qualifies because George Washington was the "first installment," not Lincoln. Seems to be stretching it a bit.
• Harsher in Hindsight: I don't think that fits. It's more like a Tear Jerker moment because it's completely contained within the work (and not later installments or other outside events). That said, you could take it to the "Is this an example?" thread.

edited 12th Aug '17 9:49:13 PM by WaterBlap

Double-posting to ping, and I originally thought I was going to put this in the Lock Request thread but on second thought it's probably better to ask here or ATT before requesting the lock.

So, ~Laptop Guy just added an alleged meme to the Memes.US Politics page for something that happened today. There's literally nothing "meme" in the example; it just happened earlier today. It's clearly ROCEJ-breaking and needs to be burned completely, but I'm wondering if the page should be locked for a while so the page's clean-up thread can work through the examples.

Here's the example he added:

From YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic IDW Issue 51 To 53:

• Harsher in Hindsight: Shadow Lock and Twilight's debate over whether to remove mentions of a historical figure became a little too timely for some readers, as the Charlottesville riot occurred only 3 months after the arc concluded. This in turn led to a real-life debate over whether Confederate memorials should be kept standing or removed due to changing political attitudes.

Should something be done about that?

Yes, cut it.

About this entry from Be Careful What You Wish For:

• In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a lot of people, even some who weren't Democrats or even Americans, hoped that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. Mostly because they figured if he were, it would be a shoo in victory for Hillary Clinton, as he was easily the most hated of all the Republican nominees that year. Well, in case you missed it, Donald Trump is now the 45th President of the United States.

Cut or keep?

Nothing really wrong with it, because it doesn't come off as bashing & it's blatantly true. Maybe I sound biased because I hate Trump, but still.

edited 20th Aug '17 8:06:32 AM by MsCC93

There are two entries for Trump on that page.

The first entry is highly speculative. It also reads as though it's from a commedian or mock survey (the likes of The Colbert Report or something like that) where one person and a cameraman walk around Fifth Avenue and interview dozens of people until they get enough material for a bit. I mean, "They were shocked when they were told that Obamacare was the Affordable Care Act's nickname" doesn't seem like a professional survey.

I think it should be cut outright.

Here's the first entry:

• After the 2016 US elections, many people stated they had voted for Trump because they liked his plan to get rid of Obamacare... but then, when asked about it, they stated they liked the Affordable Care Act because it made it easier for them to have health insurance. They were shocked when they were told that Obamacare was the Affordable Care Act's nickname. The resulting House bill and proposed Senate bill were notoriously hated, with Republican congresspeople often hiding from their own angry constituents.

The second one (already provided in ) does have something wrong with it. It's wordy, and before the primaries were conducted, nobody knew if the Democrat nominee would be Bernie or Hillary, so that's misinformation. Here's my suggested revision for that entry:

• In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, many people, including non-Americans, hoped that Donald Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee. They hoped that voters would dislike him as much as they did, and thereby garanteeing a Democrat victory. Well, Trump did win the Republican presidential nominee, but he also won the election, becoming the 45th President of the United States.

It's better to revise it, so it can sound less biased.

The House Of Grieta is an Argentine TV series with parodies of politicians. No Celebrities Were Harmed is completely averted, as all the parodies use the actual names of the politicians being parodied. Donald Trump appears in the 4° episode (see here, but it's in Spanish), as well as Nicolás Maduro, the dictator of Venezuela. Trump wants to get rid of Maduro, and first tries to shoot him, and then to fire some nukes at him. I had asked about in Ask the Tropers (I didn't know that this thread was here), and they told me that it was fine, as I was troping the parody of Trump, not the actual Trump.

Some days after that episode, the real Donald Trump said "We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary" (see here). Does it justify a Harsher in Hindsight entry? (I have not written it yet, I'm asking about it first, to play it safe).

Thank you for playing it safe. But the stickied post makes it pretty clear that Harsher in Hindsight is inappropriate for references to Donald Trump.

The Hoist by His Own Petard page lists Trump's firing of James Comey. The tl;dr version is that Comey is credited with helping Trump win the election by reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails only to be fired by Trump later during his investigation of possible Russian interference in the election.

Cut?

edited 22nd Aug '17 9:09:52 AM by PegasusKnightmare

Definitely cut, especially as it hasn't yet been determined whether the investigation will result in meaningful consequences for Trump.

I removed this example from Values Resonance, by virtue of the fact that Trump is not a super soldier who fights cyborg ninjas:

• At the time of release in 2013, reviewers found Armstrong, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance's final boss, an unsubtle mess of Japanese stereotypes about American politicians. Three years later, a politician reflecting many of those traits really did gain power in America...

So on Acceptable Political Targets, there seems to be a need for a bunch of clean-up. There are grammar and parabombing issues, but those might disappear if the other stuff is cleaned up.

Much of it is speculative, such as:

• Opposition...
  • ... to the BLM movement being labeled as "only among the right," even though there's a relatively significant opposition from centrists and LGBT activists, some of whom want to reform the BLM movement to be more inclusive whereas others outright oppose the movement.
  • ... to "Classical Liberals" (with the quotation marks) being labeled as "only among by the left, some centrists who lean to left and even real Classical Liberals," the last of which is just silly since you could say that about any group. The claim that "They are not real socialists / activists / Republicans / etc." is just silly, at least on this page.
  • ... to the KKK being labeled as "among by all leftist and centrists with some right-wing groups," even though they're nearly universally opposed.
• For the Men's Rights Movement: "While they will doubt a rape accusation against a white man, they very rarely show this kind of skepticism when it's against a black man or a Muslim. Popular culture portrayals are few and far between due to the comparatively recent emergence of the movement..." (the beginning of the second sentence implies that there isn't enough material for "frequent characterizations" yet.
• For the Alt-Right: "And see they play a bigger role in Donald Trump's campaign in 2016 election, they become two common stereotypes of when comes to refer Trump supporters."
• Under "Outsider Candidates": "This was the case during the Donald Trump campaign, which has been accused of deliberately set itself up through far-right positions to push horrified moderate Republican votes to Hillary or to split the party and allow for an easy win for the Democrats in 2016, if not the ultimate destruction of the Republican party."

Also, this is a hot-button topic and is on the page:

Should this get it's own short-term projects thread? Or can we handle it here?

The most recent edits were by Franco-America2018, who added some parabombing and a lot of grammatical mistakes. I'm going through the history now to find others who messed up the grammar.

EDIT:

Franco-America 2018 also added the "Classical Liberals" section in its entirety. And The Laptop Guy added the speculation stuff concerning opposition to these different groups. Were it not unilateral, I'd be more inclined to support it.

Both of these tropers did this after Ferot_Dreadnaught and I cleaned the page up a bit regarding Trump and Hillary Clinton.

edited 27th Aug '17 9:57:18 AM by WaterBlap

That whole page needs a scrubbing.

I know that Harsher in Hindsight references to Trump are off-limits, but I found something interesting. The series Iron Fist (2017) had a very poor reception, and the actor Finn Jones provided a creative excuse for it. "I think the world has changed a lot since we were filming that television show. I’m playing a white American billionaire superhero, at a time when the white American billionaire archetype is public enemy number one, especially in the US. We filmed the show way before Trump’s election, and I think it’s very interesting to see how that perception, now that Trump’s in power, how it makes it very difficult to root for someone coming from white privilege, when that archetype is public enemy number one."

So... is it a valid HIH if it is the creator, not us, who claims that trope is taking place regarding Trump? Is this some other audience reaction entirely? Or should we simply dismiss this anyway?

Interesting question, but the first two bullet points in the stickied comment seem to provide an answer:

• When the work in question specifically mentions the RL individual. (The main character happens to be metaphorically similar to Trump, but he isn't a portrayal of Trump.)
• When the entirety of the example has to do with the portrayal of that individual in the work. (The example has to do with an actor's opinion as to why the show is a failure...)

That rationale seems fine for tropes, but not for HIH, as it would be impossible to be met ever. No work will ever "mention by name" the thing that takes place in the future, because not knowing about it is precisely what HIH is all about.

In any case, the actual problematic scenario would be "the TV tropes web site has written an opinion about Trump", as some people may agree with it, and others don't. The proposal is instead "The TV tropes website makes reference to an actor's opinion about Trump", which is a different thing.

It isn't saliently different. What you are describing is troping by proxy, which is still a problem.

Moreover, the three bullets in the stickied comment apply specifically to "current political figure[s]" all of whom "should not be a subject of any trope example on the wiki" and then the three bullet points are the exceptions.

I found this in Revenge of the Sith under What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?:

• Crosses over with Hilarious In Hindsight. Some people feel that another American president used Obfuscating Stupidity to become leader of a democracy and enact rules against aliens...and that's all that will be said.

Thoughts on this?

Misuse. In What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?, the political aspect must predate the work, not the other way around.

Agreed. Though I'd add that it's also a shoehorned Hilarious in Hindsight example. Two reasons to cut, imo.