Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

Dramatic: Going by what the example mentioned, Draco was considered bad in his time and much worse today, which isn't what the trope is about. I say you can cut it.

mightymewtron: I agree.

Edited by SoyValdo7 on Jan 11th 2024 at 1:01:45 PM

Valdo

On Her Majesty's Secret Service: Sounds to me like Draco was meant to come off as an asshole even at the time (even if he comes off as worse now). Hell, the example points out that Bond looks taken aback by his comment.

Also, sorry, gonna go off-topic for a moment: a tetanus shot really isn't comparable to a COVID shot, since tetanus is not a contagious disease and someone who has it, while in a horrible situation personally, is not a danger to the public health. I'm actually a bit perturbed that anyone would conflate the two situations.

EDIT: with that in mind, I'd cut that example, since while I consider someone (who works on a farm, no less) turning down a tetanus shot to be very stupid, it's not comparable to refusing your COVID vaccination.

Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Jan 13th 2024 at 6:41:42 AM

From Phineas And Ferb Doof Dynasty:

---

• Values Dissonance: This episode takes place in ancient China, and yet all the characters still look exactly like their Caucasian counterparts. This certainly would not fly in a post-George Floyd era.

---

First, it hasn't been 20 years, and second, what?

Cut that, it's making a needless mountain out of a molehill. It's just a generic "characters taking on different roles" storyline.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I cut it.

Yeah, I've never seen any backlash relating to that. There were similar Historical AU episodes of Phineas and Ferb (there was one set in prehistoric times, and I believe one that was set in the early 1900s as well), and the fact that one of them is set in ancient China is purely incidental.

I'd recommend sending that YMMV subpage to the Cut List, given that was the only entry on it.

Cold turkey's getting stale. Tonight I'm eating crow.

I agree they probably wouldn't do it today, but the George Floyd namedrop feels a bit too indirect and even disrespectfully tokenizing. Either way, too young to be an entry.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

From YMMV.The Punisher MAX:

• Values Dissonance: There is no way a white Northern Irishman could get away with writing a character as hideously full of "gangsta" stereotypes as Barracuda these days, let alone what he gets up to in his own miniseries.

This sounds like a stretch. Thoughts?

Valdo

At minimum I don't think it has enough context, because I don't have much idea of what it's talking about.

My troper wall

I think it's trying to argue that since Garth Ennis, the writer of Punisher MAX is white, people would be more upset with him today if he wrote about a black character. Which I think is a stretch because that hasn't been a problem for others like Quentin Tarantino.

Edited by SoyValdo7 on Jan 25th 2024 at 2:27:04 PM

Valdo

Also is Punisher MAX past the waiting period?

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

Barely. The Other Wiki says it was originally published in March 2004.

Edited by SoyValdo7 on Jan 25th 2024 at 3:04:53 AM

Valdo

Mmmm, technically we have two more months to go I guess.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I think that Garth Ennis being white is irrelevant, because it's not as if the people who take issue with the character and what happens in the series would suddenly be okay with it if the author was black.

Not really, there are several cases of racist scandals recently where the creator being white was part of the controversy; people are generally more accepting of a black creator doing this since they're way less likely to just be cobbling a bunch of racist stereotypes together, but instead be drawing from some aspect of reality (such as their own life and culture). Like it's not a perfect bandaid and it can still be considered offensive, but people take worse issue with a white person doing it.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 25th 2024 at 6:21:19 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

The real problem, of course, is that the example is basically a ZCE, full of vague nothings (what stereotypes does Barracuda embody, and how?) and hand-wringing intensifiers (hideously).

Also, the whole "they couldn't get away with this now" thing is just, you know, wrong. (off the top of my head, one of GTA 5's writers is a white English guy, you could make the same empty comments about them now ("in 2013, this writing was suspect. But there's no way it could work today")).

Bad example is bad.

The Phineas And Ferb Doof Dynasty entry got re-added, with slightly different phrasing:

We've discussed this entry on this thread before, and we agreed it's not an example. Either way, the episode aired in January 2012, so it just turned 12 years old as of now - too soon for the 20 year waiting period.

Should the YMMV subpage for this episode be sent to the Cut List again? This example is the only thing on it.

Cold turkey's getting stale. Tonight I'm eating crow.

Was it the same troper? It could be an edit war.

But yeah, cut. Again.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I think it was, yeah.

I'll be bringing it to the Cut List.

Cold turkey's getting stale. Tonight I'm eating crow.

From Big Eyes.

---

• Values Dissonance: In 2014's time, the idea of Margaret having to remarry to keep her daughter sounds weird and crazy but, back then, in the 50s, in divorces, the mother stood a chance of not having custody at all and, more to this, because she would've been a housewife, Margaret didn't have too many work prospects.

---

This ought to be moved to Deliberate Values Dissonance, because while I haven't seen the movie, it seems to be a plot point.

That’s an easy move.

back lol

Just moved it.

So, I think that this has been brought up before, but went nowhere. This is on Rugrats in Paris:

• Fair for Its Day:
  • During the parade, Chuckie comments on how "there's something kind of weird about a guy in a ponytail and a dress". Even coming from a nearly two-year-old toddler, a line like this can still come across as a little insensitive nowadays, with both the expanded awareness of different cultures and the normalization of gender nonconforming behavior.
  • Coco potentially getting passed over for a promotion because she didn't have a family is rather unusual for a career woman in the late 90s-early 2000s. While it does reinforce stereotypes of women needing to be motherly, it was (and, to an extent, still is) more common for a career man to get promoted for having a family while a woman would get demoted for the same. Justified since EuroReptarland caters to children, so, as Yamaguchi says, the new CEO would need to be familiar with children's interests. In addition, Mr. Yamaguchi never said Coco needed to have kids, just that she "have the heart of a child" — Coco was the one who came up with the engagement lie.

The first one seems like plain old Values Dissonance if that. The second one...

I'm not even entirely sure what it's trying to say. I think it's saying "It would come off as sexist and weird that a woman would be at risk for losing a promotion over not having a family, until you take into account that women in the real world were often demoted at the time for that very reason", but it then admits that it still happens today, so... Yeah, I'm not entirely sure.

Edited by fragglelover on Jan 28th 2024 at 8:54:27 AM

I don't see how the first example counts for that trope. Fair for Its Day is about stuff that was positive when it came out, but no longer is. Chuckie's comment doesn't sound positive at all, it's straight up mocking.

I don't get how the second one applies, either. I think what it's trying to say is that it's progressive to show a woman being passed up for a promotion due to being childless, which-again, going by what the example says-is a fate men usually face. But I've honestly never heard of anyone, male or female, being promoted for having kids-if anything it would be the opposite, since spending time with one's kids would take away from work. The example itself even admits that women, both today and in the past, usually aren't promoted because they have kids! Plus, Coco was a villain, so she wasn't supposed to be empathized with here.

So, I take it I can remove it and move Chuckie's comment to Values Dissonance?