Follow TV Tropes
From phrasing alone, I removed the examples on YMMV.BillyJoel: "minor", "detail".
Since I did one Simpsons example, here are the rest:
I think most of them are Rule of Funny and therefore misuse.
Edited by costanton11 on Dec 20th 2019 at 7:06:25 AM
In order, for each page:
These are my thoughts, though. Feel free to disagree.
I added YMMV.The Simpsons S 16 E 21 The Father The Son And The Holy Guest Star to the cutlist, as it seemed like clear shoehorning.
Edit: The example in question was originally listed under Artistic License – Religion and the current example freely admits that it could be Artistic License. I commented out until it can be cut.
Edited by costanton11 on Dec 22nd 2019 at 11:50:18 AM
While waiting for more thoughts on the subpages I previously mentioned, here's what the main Simpsons YMMV page has on the trope:
The first is one that was already on the list I previously posted.
Edited by costanton11 on Dec 24th 2019 at 2:34:45 PM
I think you can cut the last one, since it even admits to being Rule of Funny.
This feels like a stretch.
What page is it from?
Sorry; it's from YMMV.Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2012
Probably not common enough knowledge to count.
It is also a little inaccurate as, if I remember correctly, while orcs didn't exist as a separate fantasy race until Tolkien, the word existed as another word for goblin during Anglo-Saxon times so could have been an appropriate word to use.
So, basically those guys were calling them goblins. Pretty interesting Genius Bonus.
Edited by firewriter on Dec 28th 2019 at 11:13:50 AM
That or the writers were Right for the Wrong Reasons
This page has some pretty interesting information on the word's history.
I removed that example, citing this thread.
Found this on Dracula (2020):
That sounds more like Artistic License – Linguistics.
I think there's a lot of shoehorning on CriticalResearchFailure.Vegan Artbook. Many of the examples are not obviously false. For instance, the one about "rape racks" requires you to know dairy-farming jargon. I also think the "cow milk is not 'boobie milk'" example is just overanalyzing an Appeal to Ridicule.
Yeah, the comic has a lot of garbage in it, but that bunch of examples are all overexaggerations.
I don't think it's overnalyzing when she in her work has said over and over again that udder milk is boobie milk.
Not exactly overexaggerating, especially if you read her deviantart page and you really know how insane she is.
Edited by firewriter on Jan 15th 2020 at 4:17:39 AM
Maybe but it still needs a clean-up. Like, look at the first entry:
First and foremost: despite what the vegans would have you believe, humans are indeed omnivores.
While this is a valid example because it is a basic fact, is "despite what the vegans would have you believe" necessary? It feels like an attack on all vegans, not just the webcomic author.
Then there's an entry all about the somatic content allowed in consumable milk, how would anybody that's not a dairy farmer or work for the FDA know about that? Another entry is just the fact that they sometimes show cartoon animals crying, despite not being capable. Is that really necessary?
Like, I can take out many of these entries and there still enough to warrant the page. It's not like its being let off the hook.
Edited by Stage7-4 on Jan 15th 2020 at 4:43:33 AM
You have a point there about that line generalizing all vegans, but there is a reason why there is a entry about cows crying because in vegan propaganda they claim that cows cry after their babies are taken away. And it's a way to humanize animals and make them seem sapient.
If I were to be honest, I do think that maybe some of those examples can be filed under artistic license. Also I think that entry was ferring to the vegan characters and not vegans in general.
Edited by firewriter on Jan 15th 2020 at 5:22:18 AM
You're missing my point. I know the creator is insane; the webcomic is awful and full of fallacies and misinformation. The issue is, misinformation =/= Critical Research Failure.
I took a stab at editing out the most flagrant examples (either for tone or just too sciencey for this trope). But there's still a lot to go over. Here's my result:
Edited by Stage7-4 on Jan 16th 2020 at 4:29:13 AM
Might be worth moving that to a sandbox while we work on it; I just tried to copy it in order to work on it, but AFAIK there's no way to copy the page source of someone else's forum post and having to re-add all the bullets would be a pain.
A lot of it I'm not sure about because I'm not sure where we draw the line between failing to do the research and intentional misinformation. Does it really count as a Critical Research Failure if the author is perfectly aware of the research, but is willfully ignoring it?
Like, I'm sure the author is perfectly aware that there's plenty of research out there indicating that humans are naturally omnivorous, but has found some Insane Troll Logic way of discounting it.
The more I look at the list above, the more I think it might be best to cutlist the whole page and call it a day.
Edited by HighCrate on Jan 16th 2020 at 4:21:50 AM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?