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

That might actually be difficult to distinguish in practice, since we don't actually have an exact date or time frame for when a particular group stops being an Acceptable Target. Not to mention, different cultures have different attitudes towards a particular target: what might no longer be an Acceptable Target in country X may still be fair game in country Y.

Also, documenting the backlash against the work's negative portrayal of what is no longer an Acceptable Target seems to be redundant to Unfortunate Implications.

Edited by Adept on May 12th 2020 at 11:24:12 PM

Would restricting it to on-page examples only be too far? Because I'll admit to being confused here about the distinction between these concepts on paper, and that's before trying to label an actual example.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

RE: Merging the subtropes to Acceptable Targets:

There are two questions one could ask regarding the relationship between a supertrope and its subtropes. The first is mutual distinction. The second, size. If these subtropes are mutually distinct, they should stay subtropes. Also, if these subtropes would bloat the supertrope, they should stay subtropes. I think it's fair to say that merging everything into one trope would be too broad. We typically split huge supertropes into sizeable parts, no? So why should we merge sizeable parts into a supertrope? Obviously I'm saying that we shouldn't.

Acceptable Targets concerns any category of people, so it covers instances concerning cliques (nerds, jocks), ethnicities (Jews, Portuguese, Asians), careers (lawyers, fast food workers, CEOs, funeral directors), hobbyists (book readers, chess players), religions, outcasts, people with (or without) disabilities, age, gender, etc. Pick a category, Acceptable Targets would cover it (so long as there's a work mocking that category).

IMO, we should not merge all of these tropes into AT.

This brings me to the second question, regarding size. Some of these subtropes have well over 100 wicks and 2,000 inbounds. I don't think we should merge them. On top of their distinction (listed below), I think their size justifies keeping separate pages for them.

Sizeable, distinct subtropes (imo) include:

• Acceptable Ethnic Targets: Most other Acceptable Targets groups have to do with behavior, whereas this has to do with physical traits such as the size of one's nose or feet, etc.
• Acceptable Political Targets: Most other AT groups have to do with behavior, whereas this has to do with value systems, personal beliefs and such.
• Acceptable Religious Targets: Most other AT groups have to do with behavior, whereas this has to do with spiritual beliefs and a smorgasbord of religious stuff.
• Acceptable Professional Targets: I would consider this distinct because professional groups are akin to formal class nowadays. The belief that your job defines your class is a defining characteristic of the middle class, so many creators mock certain jobs out of spite or fear (e.g. "lower" jobs like grocery store workers or garbage-men) or out of resentment (e.g. "higher" jobs like bankers or lawyers). IDK, this just seems like the "black sheep" (ergo distinct).
• Unacceptable Targets: Inverse of AT.

---

Regarding redundancies with Take That!: I always thought Take That! was a one-off joke making fun of some specific person or group (like a musician or the audience). Acceptable Targets is about making fun of categories of people (like chess players or conservatives). So, making fun of the Decemberists is Take That! but portraying musicians as snobs who can't put gas in their own car is Acceptable Targets.

---

Don't you mean Unacceptable Targets? "It's not okay to make fun of these groups" is exactly what that trope is about.

Vis-a-vis Once Acceptable Targets: I don't think it should be merged with Acceptable Targets, and it at least seems more of a subtrope to Values Dissonance with a Bad Snowclone for a name.

---

All of that said, I think we should cut Acceptable Hard Luck Targets outright. Personally, I think it's tasteless. It's supposed to cover people with disabilities or mental illness, not the Butt-Monkey as was described on the Acceptable Targets page. Moreover, the trope is too broad. Physical and mental disabilities and mental illness are not the same thing. Tackling it from a different point, though, how is "unlucky" a category of people? This doesn't seem like Acceptable Targets on the face of it. Is it supposed to be schadenfreude?

---

Okay, that was a long post, but I just want to say that I do remember merging Acceptable Lifestyle Targets with the supertrope, but that was because "lifestyle" is not distinct. It was wholly redundant with the supertrope. That doesn't mean all of its subtropes are redundant with Acceptable Targets.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

My understanding is that there has to be humor involved. It can't be a serious exploration of why group X is bad, it's about a humorous Take That! directed at group X. Evil Lawyer Joke (listed as a subtrope) is one the most clear-cut examples of this.

But I'm still not clear on what the "narration" vs character distinction people are trying to draw is. Here's a guess:

• Character: Alice makes a comment about how lawyers are evil leeches
• Narration: All the laywers in the work are evil leeches, and are kind of a Goldfish Poop Gang that frequently end up on the receiving end of slapstick and karmic comeuppance.

Neither of these is an audience reaction (so they are in-universe), both seems like legit and I don't see how there is overlap with Values Dissonance. But it seems like some people want to excise the second type of example? Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

"It's just a show; I should really just relax"

Maybe this is a Lumper vs. Splitter thing, but I'm inclined to believe that in this case, whatever shredding of examples we get done with here will render their sizes less obtrusive.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

I feel like we need a crowner considering how many times this has come up on TRS. I haven't thought much about what would go one one, but I have some ideas for options (not all of these would be mutually exclusive):

• Make In-Universe Examples Only
• Make No Real Life Examples, Please!
• Merge the Acceptable [group] Targets subtropes of Acceptable Targets with the supertrope
• Limit to work/creator opinions
• Limit to examples audiences would find objectionable if the targets weren't considered acceptable
• Cut and move examples to other tropes (such as those on the Insult Tropes and Prejudice Tropes indexes)
• Do nothing

I might have overlooked some things, but I left out Once Acceptable Targets and Unacceptable Targets pending further discussion, since the wick checks were only for Acceptable Targets and the Acceptable (whatever) Targets subtropes.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 29th 2020 at 6:54:55 AM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Those options look good.

I'd like to apologize for all this.

Went ahead and made a crowner. Feel free to add more options if I missed anything.

Edit: I intended for the IUEO and NRLEP options to cover the Acceptable [group] Targets subtropes (if they don't get merged with the supertrope) in addition to Acceptable Targets itself, but had a brain fart and neglected to note that. I'm hesitant to change the options since people other than myself have already voted, so should they be added as separate options?

Edit: Went ahead and added them as separate options. As I previously said, I left out Once Acceptable Targets and Unacceptable Targets because the opening post didn't cover them.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 30th 2020 at 12:43:19 PM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

I'm confused about that an in-universe example is in this case. Which of the examples in this post count as in-universe?

"It's just a show; I should really just relax"

In-Universe means it appears in a work, so both of those would count if they come from works. The examples we'd be getting rid of in the case of IUEO would be most of the ones currently listed on the subtropes' pages, since they're general observations about real life instead of examples from works.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 30th 2020 at 1:52:50 PM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Is it possible to revamp the trope in the sense of "groups the creator of the work believes to be Acceptable Targets"? I get the sense that is what the majority of the use on YMMV pages is for

"Blowing it up always works" -RIP Goblin Boommaster, 2014-2015

Here's the crowner for that. Any reason it's not showing up on this thread?

The problem with what the creator thinks is acceptable is 1. it's redundant with Author Tract. 2. it invites debate and backlash if audiences disagree.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 2nd 2020 at 10:22:57 AM

It hasn't been hooked yet. But I hollered for it to be hooked.

I am a little curious how we're going to define "in-universe," though, as naturalironist noted here. Now, GastonRabbit said both of the hypothetical examples would count, fine. Can someone provide an example that wouldn't count as in-universe? Because I'm having trouble conceptualizing it.

What chucknormie mentioned wouldn't count as in-universe if it's something the creator said separately from their works (such as in interviews).

My interpretation of In-Universe Examples Only had this part of Main.In Universe's description in mind, since it clarifies what the term "in-universe" means by "universe":

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 4th 2020 at 3:10:58 AM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

If we limit it to examples of characters bashing people, wouldn't that make this redundant with Take That!?

I guess you could make it a trope for the kind of targets that have a lot of Take That! example direct at them?

Edited by The_Dag on Jun 4th 2020 at 1:13:50 PM

Mankind is unloveable. No more kindness!

Take That! is meant for swipes at real-life/out of universe, or things meant to be an allegory for such. Acceptable Target is swiped at for reasons that don't necessarily fit any real life reason and can be treated as unfairly targeted for such.

The crowners been up for a week. Can we call it or do we need to hook it first?

I say we should hook it first.

I agree. Since it was never hooked, some of the later additions to the option list don't appear to have been noticed; their vote counts haven't changed much (if at all) since the last time I checked the crowner (which I'm pretty sure was several days ago). Even the vote counts for earlier additions don't appear to have changed much since it was originally posted. I think it's too early to gauge consensus from that crowner if not everyone looking at the thread list is guaranteed to know it exists (since the crowner icon isn't shown).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 10th 2020 at 10:54:50 AM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Can we call the crowner? It's been up for 5 days and haver very clear majorities for the first two options.

We also have consensus to merge the subpages into the main page.

Honestly, I'm a little confused as to what "make in-universe examples only" and "make no real life examples please" mean in the context of how to deal with this and its subtropes.