Unintentionally Unsympathetic and Unintentionally Sympathetic Cleanup

I found this on this on Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Early in the first book, Magnus justifies his stealing from people better-off than him, by arguing that they're rich and wealthy and so they can afford to give up a few of their nice things for his well-being. He then proceeds to go live in what amounts to the world's greatest five-star hotel where his every whim is catered to at no cost to himself. His entry into the Hotel Valhalla is supposedly justified due to how he died a hero's death, but the people he saved on the bridge were only in danger because Magnus himself was there, and the fact that he did actually die was almost completely inconsequential to the rest of the story. Some feel that the book is implying that the homeless are entitled to and should all be given high-class accommodations, even at the expense of others, just for the fact that they're homeless (that being said, Magnus isn't necessarily presented as being in the right when he mentions stealing from others).
  • Some also feel that Magnus is only homeless by choice, as he has living relatives that he could stay with but deliberately chooses not to go to them for help. Others feel that he really didn't have a choice, since his mother had explicitly warned him to stay away from Randolph, and while Annabeth and her parents probably would've been happy to take him in, Magnus hadn't had any contact with them in years, didn't know where they lived, and as it happens, they were hundreds of miles away; it would have been immensely difficult for him to contact them.

The first one implies that he isn't presented that he isn't meant to be presented as on the right by stealing, while also blaming him for the bridge which is weird considering that he was under attack at the time and was being presued so it wasn't his fault, and then I don't know what to make of the bolded sentence.

The second bullet feels more like Broken Base then this.

Has this one from The Simpsons S8 E1 "Treehouse of Horror VII" been talked about before?

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Lisa in "The Genesis Tub". She creates life during a science project, only to get shrunk down into the tub and stuck in the city she accidentally created, while Bart wins the science fair. But it's hard to feel bad for her because her project (that involved dissolving a tooth in cola to demonstrate the effects of tooth decay) was specifically designed to "ruin soft drinks for everyone".

Because that's clearly intentionally Lisa being a Soapbox Sadie for laughs, imo, so it's not unintentional.

Yeah, i say remove.

Cut it.

(x3) and (x4) I believe those are misuse.

This was under UnintentionallyUnsympathetic.The Legend Of Korra:

• Arguably the United Republic of Nations as a whole. The show goes out of its way to portray the Republic as a flawed, but ultimately benevolent force in the world, while simultaneously portraying many of its completely valid acts (such as refusing to start a war with the Northern Water Tribe under false pretenses) as their biggest problems, but also glossing over their major shortcomings. Particularly of note is how a large network of slums exist under Republic City yet the implications of which are completely ignored, while the same happening in Ba Sing Se is criticised.

I deleted this as it was arguable, this was minor compared to their intentional flaws, and it seemed like a deliberate part of their portrayal as a realistically flawed city. Also realized the slums originated from before it became a democracy, under a corrupt council.

The troper who added it PM'd me about it so I'm taking here to discuss. It might be valid if reworked and the other flaws allegedly glossed over are elaborated on.

I always remember them supposed to be flawed which is why they got rid of them in the second season and introduced a president.

That's really not the case. The Shanty Town beneath Republic City is portrayed as an idyllic and egalitarian little nook in the city where the first resident seen is utterly cartoonish in his optimism. Yet the outer ring of Ba Sing Se is basically the same thing, arguably slightly better even, yet is portrayed as the humanitarian tragedy there is. There's a very clear double-standard to how the UNR was portrayed and how all the others were. Essentially, what's (rightfully) considered wrong under nations like the Earth Kingdom & Northern Water Tribe are considered acceptable at worst & even aspirational at best under the Republic.

As for the "flaws" the show portrays? The only examples I was able to find were the ruling council in Season 1 who were removed at the end of said season, after which the show acts like all the problems were magically fixed, and the president not wanting to start a war with the Northern Water Tribe based on false pretenses when Korra & General Iroh were planning on starting just that & he overheard it, which hot take, not being a warmonger is a good thing actually.

In all fairness, this is a symptom of a much wider problem in regards to the show's politics, insofar how it places liberal democracy over a plethora of strawmen of every ideology that it sees as a threat. The only difference is that despite its criticisms of monarchy being a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black, at least it isn't strawmanning them.

Edited by Hawkatana on Aug 30th 2023 at 12:35:13 AM

This issue likely stems from the way Korra was written. Season 1 was meant to be all there was of it, so the issues present weren't written to carry into the next seasons because the writers had already mentally resolved the issue and had to quickly move onto a new plot they hadn't originally planned out. In other words, Republic City being bad was a season 1 thing that didn't carry over because season 1 was meant to be self-contained before the show was made to keep going.

This doesn't really excuse the sloppy handling of it of course, but it's just an explanation of why it ended up this way. More of a "it wasn't on their mind" case and less of a "you're not meant to question it" case.

I would have bought that as an excuse, if not for Seasons 3 & 4. These two were written side-by-side with each other, and they still exhibit these problems. And while it feels like punching down to criticise Season 2, it's considered the worst for a reason. It's a pattern that continues from episode 1 and continues on past the end of the series & into the follow-up comics.

The only villains who ideologically oppose the URN that are portrayed sympathetically are Varrick: the capitalist (who is on the page already) and Kuvira: the fascist. No other villain gets that luxury. Not even Zaheer. It's a systemic problem the series has towards its characters, and shows, if not a conscious bias, then at least a clear ideological blindspot the writers had towards the faults of the Republic.

It's only a "You're not meant to question it" issue in the sense that the writers didn't question it and the idea that people would just seemed alien to them.

Edited by Hawkatana on Aug 30th 2023 at 12:46:17 AM

I mean, not defending Korra's writing, it's sloppy AF. I don't disagree that these things are questionable, more just providing context as to why I believe it occurred.

Maybe we switch from what the writers did wrong to what United Republic of Nations did wrong specifically? The example that was removed doesn't tell me much. A lot of issues with the city come from its population boom due to amassing New York amount of citizens (including the Fire Nation) in just 70 years, so naturally it would have economic divide and mafia. Not to mention that one of the leaders of the URN is literally a villain and the other one needed Character Development.

The difference is that it isn't portrayed as badly as it was with the Earth Kingdom. When it happens in Republic City it's treated as fine, but only in Ba Sing Se is it shown as an explicitly bad thing. The issue is that it's a clear double standard.

Well, can we rewrite an example then to something unambiugous and direct comparison?

It may also mean that instead Ba Sing Se is reversely Unintentionally Sympathetic if they were criticized explicitly.

Edited by Amonimus on Aug 30th 2023 at 10:19:44 PM

Not really. The criticisms levied at Ba Sing Se are honestly pretty fair, considering the cartoonish levels of poverty in the outer ring. The problem is that Republic City has it worse and isn't admonished for it.

ok. The other point still remains.

The Final Fantasy X YMMV page has some that seem to be needing review.

Here were my thoughts on them:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
  • Wakka's motivations for helping Tidus are entirely selfish (his physical resemblance to Chappu and wanting to win his last blitzball game before he retires), and he is openly racist towards the Al Bhed and repeatedly insults and degrades them. The game presents his hatred of the Al Bhed as due to their role in Chappu's death, which some view as the game simplifying racism into a justified and sympathetic Freudian Excuse (although it is pointed out that the Yu Yevon propaganda against the Al Bhed is the main factor there). The game calls him out on this, he realizes he was wrong, and he's gotten better by the end. It frames it more as Irrational Hatred and Tragic Bigot yes, but it doesn't say he was right for it. Also the part about "selfish" for blitzball seem like overly nitpicky. He asks Tidus to help and Tidus agrees without issue, and his "resemblance" to Chappu is called out by Lulu also. Remove.
  • Lulu is generally frosty to pretty much everyone but Yuna for most of the game. For some, the Defrosting Ice Queen arc simply doesn't work and Lulu is too harsh and cold to be likeable. She's a Defrosting Ice Queen as the trope says. Leaning towards remove, but I can see why her personality can make her hard to like.
  • There's also the fact that the entire party never tell Tidus that the Final Summoning is a Heroic Sacrifice, and in the meantime treat his flippancy towards the pilgrimage and its goal with disdain. Tidus' ignorance over Spiran culture is something that grates on the party throughout the game, but they rarely make an effort to explain things to him and just act annoyed. Some players go so far as to accuse the party of being enablers, because they do know what the Final Summoning is and are supportive and encouraging of it. This is not helped by the game's narrative making it obvious that Yevon is a Corrupt Church, and The Reveal that the Final Summoning is a lie and false hope is very heavily foreshadowed. This means that players will quickly clue into things that the party members will not, since most of them have been raised to have absolute faith in Yevon and never had any reason to doubt them, and this makes it easier for the player to judge them more harshly for their actions and devotion. This is applying a broad statement towards characters, and feels closer to Audience Awareness Advantage. Remove.
  • Tidus' mother was deeply in love with Jecht - to the point that she let herself die after his disappearance - and is consistently portrayed as The Woobie. However, not only did she completely ignore Tidus when his father was around, she never bothered stopping her husband from bullying their son, and didn't seem to care what happened to him after Jecht disappeared. This one can be somewhat valid, but there isn't enough context as to her relationship to feel like this is fair. Alternative Character Interpretation seems more fitting to discuss it. Remove.

I would cut the Lulu one. She's a popular character and the weasel words of "it doens't work for some players" goes against what unintentional means.

It's just "this storyline didn't work for me." as opposed to "the writers didn't realize they were making a character unsympathetic".

I habven't played FFX but if the story calls out Wakka then i don't think he counts

From YMMV.Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic; Merope is portrayed as a Jerkass Woobie and Harry and Dumbledore seem to sympathize with her use of the Love Potion on Tom Riddle Sr. due to how desperate she was. However, many fans see this as no different from rape and found her hard to sympathize with after this. Also to a larger extent, the trend of Hogwarts girls using Love Potions on boys they have a crush on is portrayed as harmless mischief, which would likely not be the case if the genders were reversed.

OK, here's the thing, Harry and Dumbledore do pity Merope and feel bad for her abusive childhood, but they don't sympathize in the least with her horrific use of the Love Potion on Tom Riddle Sr. Harry blatantly likens it to Dark Magic.

Should we cut? The entry implies that the book sympathizes with and defends Merope's rape of Tom Sr, but it doesn't do that at all.

Edited by AudioSpeaks2 on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:11:45 PM

I read the book; yes, it should be cut.

Alright, I removed it.

x5: I think Lulu's only works if it discusses how the game treats her Ice Queen personality as a "good thing", but even then she softens up, so I agree that it feels very weak for an entry.

x4: I think the issue the entry is trying to say is that the game treats his hate/racism towards the Al Bhed as being just a "Freudian Excuse", which I can somewhat understand since early on the characters dance around the topic slightly, but the entry itself even says "although it is pointed out that the Yu Yevon propaganda against the Al Bhed is the main factor there", and given that according to the story, he lost his brother only like a year or two before the start of the story, he's supposed to grow and realize he was wrong, which he does.

I think people are fine to think the game's writing for him is questionable, but the entry feels like its trying to say he's not sympathetic for something that is meant to not be a good thing.

Honestly if some fans of the game don't like these characters, it's fine. But that doesn't make them UU. It may just make them Base Breaking Characters.

Or it just means some fans don't like them, even.

(Yeah, I know it's a bit of a nitpick, but BBC gets misused a lot too, so let's not conflate it unnecessarily with anything else. It requires a bigger and sharper split than "some".)