Complaining: Fandom Berserk Button

From Fullmetal Alchemist

• Fandom Berserk Button: There may not be any FBB in history capable of provoking such visceral rage, horror, and disgust as making Nina Tucker/dog jokes around a devoted FMA fan. To do so is the fandom equivalent of wading into a pool of gasoline and dropping a lit match. Which, of course, is so many people do it.

This isn't an objective mistake right?

That falls under "don't make offensive jokes", which is said to not qualify as FBB on the main page.

Also, this example from the Western Animation page seems dodgy, and might be a potential Zero Context Example.

• The aftermath of asking most fans what Robin's real name is in Teen Titans will definitely not be pretty.

Edited by Someoneman on Sep 29th 2018 at 6:57:25 AM

Yeah, that does sound a bit far fetched to me, too.

There's also this example:

• Perhaps the best ever triggering of a Fandom Berserk Button in conjunction with My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic was an article on Cartoon Brew titled, "The End of the Creator-Driven Era in TV Animation". It was about the launch of The Hub and MLP:FiM with it, and the author Amid Amidi complained that Lauren Faust had sold out to Hasbro who made her produce a stupid little serial My Little Pony TV commercial without even knowing what exactly he wrote about. Not only was he therefore utterly wrong, but the article got what it deserved and then some in a spectacular way:
  It was published nine days after the premiere at a time when only one single episode, one half of the pilot, had aired so far. The fandom was still tiny, and the term "brony" didn't even exist yet. But what few later-known-as-bronies were available were mobilized in the trademark 4chan style to comment on the article and tell Amidi how utterly wrong he was. This caught the attention of other Cartoon Brew readers who decided to give the show (again, which was nothing more than one episode with a cliffhanger) a chance, came back as new fans and gave their own comments to the article which in turn attracted even more viewers who became bronies and commented and so forth. Since all the complaints generated more fans who'd go complain, too, this Fandom Berserk Button went full-auto — and actually helped create the corresponding fandom itself. Years later, bronies would come back to the article and leave a comment in which they thanked Amidi for almost single-handedly creating their fandom.

On one hand, it does appear to involve an objective misconception about the show, but on the other, it dates from when the fandom had just started, so I'm not sure if the misconception could have been widespread enough to be annoying.

It also seems to be a Take That! revenge post by someone from 4Chan.

The main page says that "Referencing a character with an Ambiguous Gender as either gender" is not an example, but I don't think that should exclude characters who are explicitly non-binary and go by they/them pronouns like Stevonnie and Smoky Quartz from Steven Universe.

Would they still be ambiguous?

If the character is explicitly said to be non-binary or genderless in-story or by Word of God, then referring to them as male or female could count.

If the character's gender is not specified by official sources, then it's just complaining about other peoples' headcanons, which is not FBB material.

I'm bumping this to ask for more details about this ZCE on FandomBerserkButton.Western Animation:

• Never call Robotboy "Little Blue Boy".

Given the way it's written, it clearly isn't a valid example.

This Glee example on Live Action TV is unclear and might not qualify:

• On a more serious note, one should not imply that Puck raped Quinn because the shippers will instantly be at your throat. (Though he totally, 100% did, despite the later Hand Wave.)

Haven't seen the show, but if the complaint is correct it's not an example.

Live-Action Films (Marvel Cinematic Universe:) example:

• Fans will not take calling the Winter Soldier/Bucky Barnes a villain very kindly. Even Sebastian Stan is fed up with interviewers referring to Bucky as a villain.

I'd remove it. He consistently comes up as one of the top 10 marvel villains in fan votes, and he is The Heavy in his namesake movie.

The problem with the Glee example is that it contradicts itself multiple times, so I don't know if there actually was a rape or not. At first it says that the rape didn't happen, then that it did happen but is subject to Fanon Discontinuity, then that it totally 100% happened, then that it didn't happen but that fans aren't satisfied with the Hand Wave explanation as to why it didn't happen. I don't know which of these is true.

I'm not familiar with the MCU, but looking at Bucky's page, it looks like he was originally a villain but later became one of the good guys. If the issue is claiming that he's still a villain, it might qualify.

Regarding the Bucky example, he was brainwashed, so he wasn't consciously choosing to do villainous things. He was definitely an antagonist, but not an outright villain.

Edited by costanton11 on Dec 11th 2018 at 4:43:36 AM

In that case, I can see why people would take issue with people calling him a villain. I think the example is legitimate.

Somebody recently edited this Frozen example (addition in bold).

• Anna is not a ginger. She has strawberry blonde hair. Alternatively, many fans reject the official books calling her a strawberry blonde and insist that she's a redhead.

I'm pretty sure this addition is Fanon Discontinuity and doesn't count, but I'm not sure if the original counts, either. Is Anna's hair color really that important to Frozen fans?

No, it isn't important. Kill it with fire - or perhaps with ice.

Besides, Anna's hair color is clearly closer to ginger than strawberry blonde anyway, if Google Image is anything to go by. Kill it.

That was my edit. I wasn't sure if it counted or not.

Does this Sailor Moon example count? I can't say I've ever come across this issue, though I don't doubt it exists to some degree.

• Referring to the team using the "Sc" word. ^note "Scouts". It's Senshi, which means pretty much the same thing.

Books list her as a strawberry blonde, but then again Elsa's apparently a "white-blonde" instead of a platinum blonde for some reason.

To me, it just seems like "Do not say that word. Instead, use this word, which basically means the same thing." Or, Distinction Without a Difference.

That example doesn't make any sense at all unless you're a fan of the show (which I am not, so I have absolutely no idea what it's trying to say). Cut

The T-Word Euphemism using two letters is the least of the problems. It's basically the type of misuse we're trying to remove.

I found this example on Pokemon:

• Be careful claiming that a certain Pokemon was (more or less) based on a certain obscure animal (like Charmander being the real-life salamander). It can go many ways from there.

I think it was trying to say "don't make mistakes about which real-life animal a Pokémon is based on", which does count as an objective misconception that could annoy fans, but the wording is kind of weird and I'm not sure if that's actually what it means.

It's rather vague and not really a berserk button. I think it's safe to delete it.