Needs Help (New crowner 30 December 2020): Acceptable Targets

Acceptable Targets is supposed to be YMMV, but per ATT, most examples are written as the work or creator treating them as acceptable (which is too objective to be YMMV and redundant with Take That! or Author Tract) as opposed to audiences treating them as such (which would be YMMV).

Acceptable Targets also has a Playing With. YMMV can’t be played with so that’s more evidence against it being YMMV. From it:

• Straight: Lance of Troperville is a minor character who has an interest in technology and happens to suffer many misfortunes in the series which the author intended.

I think it’s supposed to be what audiences would find objectionable if not for the targets being acceptable. Problems with that:

• It has been pointed out calling anyone acceptable runs afoul with Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment
• It runs into same issues that caused Dude, Not Funny! to be In-Universe Examples Only.
• Audiences or fans agreeing with the opinions of works they like sounds like People Sit on Chairs (it doesn’t give anything meaningful about the work).
• It would be troping people as opposed to the works.
• Troping what people would/should think sounds to contentious even for YMMV even if it didn’t invite controversy.

From Quotes.Acceptable Targets

That’s a possible use, as it gives an objective explanation why they’re acceptable. They can’t argue back so they can be mocked without fear of consequences. This would make the following acceptable:

• Any so long gone/defunct there’s no one still around to defend them.
• Any too small to cause notable backlash.
• Any with reason they wouldn’t know of their targeting or reason against retaliating.
• Any such defending, sympathizing with, or admitting to being part of would garentee one backlash.

Wick check for Acceptable Targets and sub tropes (in folders due covering multiple tropes).

Acceptable Targets: 2474+132(redirect) wicks, 23,038 inbounds

Only 16 (14 discounting in-universe) out of 50 examples are valid as audience reactions. And all 16 are either such common targets (like Nazis) it’s its own trope, against RL people pushing ROCEJ, or have issues that make them suspect.

Acceptable Ethnic Targets: 148 wicks, 2,045 inbounds

Only 14 (9 discounting in-univsere) out of 50 valid, and are either common targets or in-universe.

Acceptable Hard Luck Targets: 37 wicks, 523 inbounds

ALL of the non in-universe are misused.

Acceptable Hobby Targets: 46 wicks, 860 inbounds

ALL of the non in-universe are misused.

Acceptable Political Targets: 220 wicks, 4275 inbounds

Only 12 (9 discounting in-univsere) out of 50 valid. Many of the WNAO are recent political ones that push ROCEJ, arguing this trope should be No Real Life Examples, Please!

Acceptable Professional Targets: 161 wicks, 1878 inbounds

Only 15 (5 discounting in-univsere) out of 50 valid.

Acceptable Religious Targets: 128 wicks, 4985 inbounds

Only 8 (4 discounting in-univsere) out of 50 valid.

Final tally: out of 283 total, only 41 non in-universe examples are valid audience opinions as opposed to the works/creators opinion. An 85.5% misuse. Joker (2019), Thirty Rock, Snow Dogs, 19 Kids and Counting, Villette, and The Jewish Americans are the only 5 that don’t fall under another trope and properly explain it as an audience reaction with enough objective history or explanation to avoid any ROCEJ.

Most of the examples are redundant with Society Marches On (once acceptable), Values Dissonance (acceptable in their home country/period), Snark Bait (the work/creator is acceptable), Asshole Victim, Take That! or Author Tract (the work/creator finds them acceptable). Most of the valid examples are either in-universe or such uncontroversially common targets they’re their own tropes (Nazis, Right Wing Militia Fanatics, Lawyers) meaning nothing would be lost by removing them.

Once Acceptable Targets and Unacceptable Targets have no notable problems as they acknowledge the audience reaction.

Cleanup options:

• Rework to work/creator opinion
• Reworks so it’s about what audiences would find objectionable if not for the targets being acceptable
• Make in-universe only like Dude, Not Funny! (I recommend this as the best way to keep the trope for it's concept and inbounds)

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jan 19th 2020 at 1:23:17 AM

Sorry for the long wait, ~Ferot_Dreadnaught. Opened for discussion.

Snark Bait has since been made Flame Bait. Acceptable Targets is Snark Bait applied to real-life people (whether it's the work who thinks it's acceptable or audiences). This argues for:

1. Making in-universe only. (I think the safest bet.)
2. Making non-YMMV as what the work considers acceptable isn't subjective. (Risks ROJEC for bashing though. Those old/common enough to be accepted or once-accepted have their own tropes.)

An initial thought: regardless of anything, cut all subtropes of Acceptable Targets except Once Acceptable Targets and Unacceptable Targets as being Acceptable Targets But More Specific.

You know, I wonder if "splitting" this trope by use would make sense.

What happened to Acceptable Lifestyle Targets, by the way?

Cut.

We also cut Acceptable Inevitable Targets for the same reason, both were deemed The Same, but More Specific to Acceptable Targets.

So I removing all the other Targets sub-tropes as redundant with Acceptable Targets, which is a well enough known concept it should be kept in some form or another.

that 4 for cutting the AT sub-tropes.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on May 11th 2020 at 6:56:02 AM

Yeah; besides Once Acceptable Targets and Unacceptable Targets, the other subpages can merge to the main one.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 11th 2020 at 9:53:41 AM

Agreed on merging the subpages with the main trope.

I feel like we should bring this up in ATT, honestly.

Go ahead, if you want to.

Done

I'd merge the subpages into the main trope as well; that seems like the easiest solution.

As for its use on work pages, I think a split between in/out of universe makes the most sense.

In Universe should definitely be kept. But for out of universe, should this trope be about what the work/creator views as acceptable targets or what audience dos?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on May 11th 2020 at 10:48:58 AM

The work's creator. Otherwise the examples would just be a lot of "Nazis/racists appear in this work, Nazis/racists are bad."

Yeah, definitely the creator.

How is it distinct from Author Tract or An Aesop that x group is bad and deserves ridicule then? Should it be a Trivia trope then requiring Word of God or is just regularly bashing them proof enough? And how is Acceptable Targets different than a Take That! to them?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on May 11th 2020 at 11:10:19 AM

The in-universe version is "the work* or characters treat a character or group as an Acceptable Target." This is something the author deliberately put into the work for narrative purposes; it is a trope.

The out-of-universe version is "fans treat a character or group as an Acceptable Target." This is an audience reaction; it is YMMV.

*If the author goes out of their way to imply that the group is "bad", it then becomes an Author Tract. If the work simply shows it happening, it's Acceptable Targets.

Edited by RallyBot2 on May 11th 2020 at 2:18:20 PM

Can you explain a bit more what Work, not Audience Opinion means? You didn't copy the wicks so I can't tell for myself.

For example, is a work where the Butt-Monkey is an evil lawyer work or audience opinion?

This sounds like The Same, but More to me. They both basically boil down to "Work/narrative depicts subject X as something worthy of ridicule."

Edited by Adept on May 13th 2020 at 3:09:37 AM

One case is "the author shows characters treating a group poorly." The other is "the author uses the work to show their opinion about the group."

To rephrase it, using the most common "acceptable target" in modern world history:

A work created in 1980 and set in 1820 that shows characters saying negative things about black people? In-universe Acceptable Targets.

A work created in 1980 and set in 1820 where the narration says negative things about black people? Author Tract.

A work created in 1980 and set in 1820 where the fans happen to dislike the one black character? Neither.

A work created in 1980 and set in 1820 where the fans dislike a group of black characters because they are black? Out-of-universe Acceptable Targets.

The latter most likely won't happen in modern times; at least where black people are concerned. Other ethnicities appear to be fair game, however, even now.

On that note, I want to get rid of Once Acceptable Targets and merge its entries into the other subpages. Having Once Acceptable Targets implies the message of "it's okay to make fun of this ethnic/racial/religious/etc. group, but not this other one," which is not a statement we want to be making.

I'd prefer making this IUEO over keeping it as-is (and I think the subcategories, with the exception of Unacceptable Targets, are unnecessary for being The Same, but More Specific; I agree with what RallyBot said about Once Acceptable Targets), but how would that be distinct from Take That! and other Insult Tropes? I think keeping this subjective is a bad idea, but at the same time, I wonder if making this IUEO would make it The Same, but More to Take That!.

Either way, I think redefining this to be about what audiences think are acceptable targets would result in a non-Flame Bait version of Snark Bait (that is, unless the thread makes this Flame Bait as well), so I'm against that.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 12th 2020 at 3:27:49 AM

"Characters discriminate/ridicule group X because that's the that's the prevalent attitude of the setting" should be covered by numerous Prejudice Tropes, as well as Values Dissonance and Society Marches On, I think.

I appreciate all the thought you put into possible uses of Acceptable Targets. But such, with contradictory ymmy and non-ymmv uses, seems so complex it will lead to confusion and misuse. Thoughts:

"A work created in 1980 and set in 1820 that shows characters saying negative things about black people?" Deliberate Values Dissonance if present audiences are supposed to find it disagreeable.

"A work created in 1980 and set in 1820 where the narration says negative things about black people?" Agree that's Author Tract.

"A work created in 1980 and set in 1820 where the fans dislike a group of black characters because they are black?" That sound like exactly the sort of inflammatory thing we want to avoid on this wiki.

And how does Once Acceptable Targets imply "it's okay to make fun of this ethnic/racial/religious/etc. group, but not this other one"? Looking it over it doesn't say it still ok to mock X, just that it in no longer ok to mock Y, unless I missed something.

It might be worth cutting Once Acceptable Targets if it's too similar to Values Dissonance, but I think there's a difference.

• Values Dissonance: A work created when X was still an Acceptable Target.
• Once Acceptable Targets: A work created after X was no longer an Acceptable Target and thus gets backlash over.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on May 12th 2020 at 9:39:50 AM