My problem with this isn't that it's not a real phenomenon — media demonstrably considers some things, places, or people gloves-off when it comes to abuse — but that it's an attractant of flame wars and people getting their knickers in a twist about something they personally disagree with.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Cut. The examples listed seem random, and plenty of examples are outdated.
Edit: Also this.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 9th 2018 at 9:37:25 AM
I got a rock for Halloween.Another thing of note: considering we already have the Once Acceptable Targets and Unacceptable Targets page, this trope in itself also feels redundant.
It seems like it would be much easier to list things that were Once Acceptable Targets or Unacceptable Targets once it's become clear after the fact that they're no longer an acceptable target than it would be to try and list things that are still 'acceptable' targets because not only would they eventually become outdated, as one trope above me pointed out, its a kind of thing that would naturally attract Flame Wars and arguments over whether it actually counts as an example.
Edited by TokoWH on Oct 9th 2018 at 7:48:28 AM
I have the same opinion of this as I do every Acceptable Targets page: just make it In-Universe and rather than having the big sections talking about each individual target, just do the same thing we do with every other trope and divide it by medium, rather than by Target.
Like, it's not based on opinion that Yahtzee frequently makes fun of nerds, furries, and Tony Abbott. So why leave it as YMMV as though it's up for contention?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.The problem with making it In-Universe Examples Only is that I can see the pages being used for Creator Bashing. I.e.: 'X creator thinks so and so is an acceptable target which makes them a horrible person and no one should watch X show'.
Edited by TokoWH on Oct 9th 2018 at 8:02:34 AM
If that's your only concern, then it seems like that's a good move, then.
That doesn't even happen now, when it's on the YMMV page. Why would moving it to the more stringent namespace make that suddenly happen?
Edited by Larkmarn on Oct 9th 2018 at 11:38:16 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Repurposing it as objective and listing only examples where a creator bashes something In-Universe might work, if it can be kept clean of people soapboxing. To throw an example out there, would we list it if a spunkgargleweewee modern military shooter depicts Arabs as people that it's acceptable to mock and murder, or for contrast, if a popular left-wing vlogger says it's cool to kill rednecks?
In other words, at what point does the ROCEJ step in and say that it's just not worth dealing with?
Edited by Fighteer on Oct 9th 2018 at 11:51:46 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Making Acceptable Targets IUEO seems redundant with Take That! and its subtropes, which already cover in-universe insults. I think cutting Acceptable Targets and its sub-categories is more ideal than making them IUEO if keeping it YMMV is problematic.
That said, I think making Unacceptable Targets IUEO would be fine, since a trope about deeming subjects off-limits probably wouldn't be Flame Bait fuel.
Edit: I checked and Take That! is listed under No Real Life Examples, Please!, if that matters.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 9th 2018 at 1:43:23 PM
I got a rock for Halloween.Making these pages IUEO would help with some problems. For example, the tendency to fill them with what's really sociological analysis of RL prejudice would be disallowed.
However, I see another problem with making the Acceptable Target tropes IUEO: it would only really work for works where the acceptable targets are not targets IRL.
For example, it may work for a book where blue-eyed people are the objects of ridicule, because there's no such real-world prejudice for it got get mixed up with.
But change it just a bit and consider a book where blondes are considered stupid. Suddenly we're dealing with a real-world prejudice. Even if the examples only dealt with what's going on in the book's universe, would it really still be possible to separate that from the RL cases?
My point is that unless we made the distinction even stricter and restricted examples to IU examples that have no RL counterpart, they would probably still act as flame magnets.
I'm going to throw a halfway possibility: cut categories that lack examples or move them to an Analysis subpage. Just looking at Acceptable Professional Targets there's a bunch that just have a description of why the troper(s) think they're acceptable and no examples or—in the case of abortion doctors at least—the only example is an aversion.
Trust me, I'm an engineer!This is the third thread on Acceptable Targets in recent memory.
I still think all of these are genuinely objective tropes being used as YMMV.
That said, the "lifestyle" target seems equivalent with the regular AT, so I'd support a merge with AT and Ua T.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyI agree with everyone else who's in favour of cutting the trope (and moving any worthwhile examples elsewhere), for all the reasons mentioned. The trope itself seems redundant, and with a long list of overly random examples. I feel it'd be easier and more simple to just give the entire thing the axe.
Edited by StardustSoldier on Nov 13th 2018 at 2:24:39 AM
I see strong consensus for cutting and would be willing to advance it on that basis, unless there's a lot more interest in trying to repair it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So, this came from an "Ask the tropers" thread
about a troll trying to use the wiki to condemn furries. Now, I realize this is already gonna cause some eye rolls in some users but having looked over the Acceptable Lifestyle Targets page I can't help but wonder why we have this page in the first place.
Not only are a majority of the 'targets' outdated(fat people/slim people, timid guys) in terms of being targets this also seems like a trope that would be prone to Opinion Myopia. Not to mention a few of the examples seem like they're arguing over whether they're still an example or not. (People who live with their parents, geeks/nerds) And then there are examples that make me question if they're actually examples. (College majors listing damn near every major under the sun, "athletic people" somehow being an example even though I don't really remember the last time an athletic person was made fun in media)
Either we need to scrub the page and clean up unclear/arguably examples, lock the page with stricter rules on what counts as an example or nuke the page altogether. I'd be more so towards nuking the page since Society Marches On frequently in regards to this stuff, so what was once an example can become outdated not long after it was added.