So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

Well, how many fans are there? A work can still have fans and be horrible, the fans just have to be a minority of people.

Personally I've never seen a fan of Vegan Art Book before.

anecdotal evidence means very little, especially for something so little known (ive never even heard of it outside of the SBIH page... although perhaps that means something in itself).

One thing I should mention is that every TVT review for the series is...pretty negative.

Said TVT reviews mention the art as a redeeming quality.

I wouldn't exactly call TV Tropes reviews a credible source for representing fanbases.

I wouldn't either, I just thought it was worth noting.

Personally, the moral is so ham-fisted and ignorant that I’m almost sure it qualifies. And the artwork is nice, but what does that matter? Comics with good art like tHe Fr Ec Kl Ed Fi Ng Er have been listed as horrible before.

"Tuck Frump" on Advertising has been edited again to make it more biased. Additions include "any republican candidate would be hostile to the LGBT community" and "most of the ad turned out to be correct".

I say we remove the bias and send a PM to the troper responsible about the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.

I've already reverted it. Send the editor a Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement PM.

What a shock, the edit was made by ~LTM402...

...I know hating Trump is the mainstream opinion, and for a very good reason, but there's hating a politician and having an agenda to remove even neutral statements about the guy. I think LTM just crossed into the former...

Not only that, this was the second time he tried to change the Tuck Frump section.

I say they be banned.

That's not our call. We should ping a mod, though. Since ~nombretomado came last time, I'll see if they can help us here.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 6th 2019 at 10:20:17 AM

At least add some liberal consensus that the Tuck Frump ad is bad.

It's the subject of ridicule everywhere you type it in on Google. The downvotes on YouTube far outweigh the upvotes. Comments are disabled.

That doesn't sound like something that only got dislikes from one side of the coin, and the example explicitly states " even people who don't like Donald Trump expressing dislike for the ad."

Well, I'm trying to do the right thing by making the example actually neutral, since like it or not, the ad's claims are indeed based on things Trump did say, they are not exaggerations nor fabrications. I did research on the claims and the only one that I couldn't find anything on was of him saying he hated gay people, but I certainly think the person making that claim was referring to the fact that any Republican candidate would be hostile to gay people, so it was not a claim pulled out of their ass and done for the sake of it, and I also found this : http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-criticizes-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your claim that is a "neutral" example, that I'm pushing an agenda or even that someone calls for me to be banned when I'm not doing anything wrong. I've known this site for 9 years and I'm well aware of the rules, so I thought I did the right thing, I would never act on bad faith.

I also contest the claim that people from both sides hated the ad, because all of the videos and articles "debunking" the ad that I've seen come from clearly biased sources such as Steven Crowder or from people with "both sides are bad" and "liberals are snowflakes" mentalities. The conditions for the Horrible section say that literally everyone hated it, and this doesn't seem to be the case, simply having more dislikes than likes doesn't mean it's wrong, and I understand them disabling comments because most of them would be from alt-righters gloating. The point is that the ad is mostly truthful, I understand some find it annoying, but does have a point and I simply don't think it belongs here, and I have yet to find other examples that portray Trump in a positive light, but if I found them I would also rewrite or remove them, since you simply can't defend Trump unless you agree with his words and actions, which I thought was verboten here.

Edited by LTM402 on Oct 6th 2019 at 11:23:56 AM

But the consensus disagrees with you. The rest of us have agreed that the example as written was fine. You agreed to this consensus.

Whether or not you think you're doing wrong, what you're doing is 100% based in politics, and that's not what we're about. We've already discussed that the ad sucks for being both biased (yes, even "factual" sources can have bias if they only show one side of the argument, and yes, there's another side), and also for being obnoxious and grating. Just because you disagree with that sentiment doesn't mean others don't. And furthermore, why would it be just "alt-right" people complaining about the ad? People who agreed with the politics could hate it for being irritating, or because they felt it was too aggressive, or what have you. While there's a lot of biased and noisy conservative voices crawling all over the internet, you have no proof that the only dislikes and comments came from people who disagreed with the ad politically, and you seem to think that the only reason anyone would dislike it is if they disagree.

You. Are. Biased. I don't know how else to tell you this. You're blinded by the politics. The example was neutral. It did not support Trump. It just spoke about the ad and why people dislike it, with a minor mention of something the ad got wrong, factually speaking. Not everything has to turn into a political binary argument, and conservatives aren't always wrong and liberals aren't always right and all you're doing is creating more arguments.

I get it. Nobody here likes Trump. We all agree with what you're saying. But this is not the place, and the example is just fine as it is. You didn't fix anything, you just made a bigger mess.

...Anyway, that's all I have to say. I'll just be lurking after this.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 6th 2019 at 12:33:30 PM

• sigh* well, do what you want, this is just going in circles. I won't touch the example ever again, but I'll stand by my opinion that it does not belong and that the note is not neutral. Also, the fact is that a majority of those who hate the ad are either Trump supporters or people who think both sides are bad. Hell, one forum discussing the ad even has threats against the people appearing on it from people using words such as "cucks" (if that's not alt-right I don't know what it is then). If you find an example of someone who voted against Trump and supports the Democratic Party hating and debunking the ad let me know. The point is that the ad did turn out to be right on hindsight, so it's not simply a case of "liberals being wrong".

But whatever, Screw This, I'm Outta Here, you win.

I know I said I was done, but I think I should defend myself here. I never said that this ad is "liberals being wrong". I said that liberals can be wrong, and that the ad is biased, even if it comes from a source you and I can both agree with. It's less "the liberals are wrong" and more "the people who made this ad made a bad, partially-incorrect ad".

That's all.

FWIW, leaving Trump himself aside I'm still not convinced the writeup really makes the case for it being Horrible beyond the norm for aggressive political ads. But it sounds like everyone else here disagrees, so I'm not gonna die on that hill.

Edited by nrjxll on Oct 6th 2019 at 1:47:39 PM

Seems F the Prom by The Fine Brothers was recently added to the Films page.

I know jack-all about the movie (I don't follow the Fine Bros), but the description and its trope pages certainly make it sound like an utter nightmare to watch.

I know that movie. I think it fits. It's...just really, really bad.