EnemyMine cleanup

It would be great to do a cleanup for the various pages of Enemy Mine.

There are many shoehorns; Fan Myopia; poor spelling, grammar, and formatting; and many of the pages are very long and hard to read and may contain natter.

The Politics section of EnemyMine.Real Life for example is very long and may contain ROCEJ violations and many of the examples are real life examples of the otherwise NRLEP The Horseshoe Effect.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Jun 4th 2021 at 12:56:14 PM

Let me summon The Mayor of Simpleton, mightymewtron, ChloeJessica, Berrenta, and RallyBot2

What do you all think?

You're not doing the ping markup right. It's ~ @ / Troper Name.

I'll help with this later maybe, after I go to sleep.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Bump, this time pinging the following:

~The Mayor of Simpleton ~mightymewtron ~ChloeJessica ~Berrenta ~RallyBot2 ~PlasmaPower ~bwburke94

I'm here. I'm going to look through and see if there are any examples that might be questionable.

Alright, so Live-Action Films had some ZCEs that I have since commented out. I will also let the dedicated thread for those know.

One way more attention could be brought to this thread is if specific examples were brought up. Nen_desharu, if you have specific examples you think are problematic, bring them up here and we'll debate whether or not to keep them (or alternatively just rubber stamp their removal if they are bad enough.)

Will do.

Let me begin (from the Modern politics section):

Militant feminists and the religious right disagree on almost every issue except of one: they both hate pornography. The feminists feel that it's exploitative of women; the Religious Right feel that it's immoral and sinful, and also exploitative of women.

The odd alliance between the Religious Right and militant feminists on the subjects of porn and prostitution has been frequently lampshaded and criticized by more moderate "sex-positive" feminists. There's considerable debate in the feminist camp as to whether or not sex work is exploitative, especially when the participants are fully willing. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale blames exactly this alliance (at least in part) for the creation of Gilead. Pornography can produce stranger alliances than this. ICANN recently approved a ".xxx" top-level domain for Internet porn; who opposed it? The Religious Right, who feared that it would legitimize pornography; and the porn industry, who feared that it would lead to stricter regulations. Similar to the issue of the ".xxx" top-level domain for internet porn, both the Religious Right and the porn industry oppose to making it legal for women to go topless. The former believe that it's immoral; the latter fear a fall in demand. But in several states (including New York) it IS legal for ANYONE to go topless, as long as they don't enter private businesses that request you not to (i.e. the famous "No shirt, no shoes, no service" rule). Militant feminists and the Christian Right are also united in not caring for burqas; both backed the burqa bans in France and Belgium. Militant feminists think burqas oppress women and restrict their rights; the Christian Right fears Islamic fundamentalism spreading in Christian (or post-Christian) societies. Meanwhile, burqas are banned in several Islamic countries, creating another Enemy Mine on the other side of the fence: religious Muslims and political liberals (in the "small l" sense of "let people do what they want within reason"). An example of this alliance in action would be German feminist Alice Schwarzer writing books slamming Islam, publicly sympathizing with German right-wing movements like PEGIDA and Af D, and attacking Judith Butler over her support for Muslim causes. Many right-wingers in Germany (and a few German libertarians) who once hated Schwarzer now publicly embrace her, while at the same time, feminist groups started protesting against Schwarzer's public speeches. Some feminists and fundamentalists also both condemn heavy rock music, both like to purge libraries of controversial books, both favor harsh 'law and order' stances against sex crimes, both suspect that that All Men Are Perverts who women must keep on the straight and narrow path, and, in extreme cases, both agree that Sex Is Evil. (Get a room, already... Oh, wait.) Certain factions of the feminist movement have a strong distaste for the colour pink, just like chauvinistic dudebros. This irony is not lost on some of the moderate branches of feminism, who emphasize that you can reject the idea of prescribed gender roles (i.e., gender roles more or less explicitly enforced by society) without rejecting the whole concept of being feminine; hating pink, they say, can be misogynistic itself— although individuals may have good personal reasons to dislike the color. In some countries such as France, this common opposition also extends to other issues, such as prostitution and surrogacy. Some feminists and men's rights activists will agree on support for research on male contraception, feminists because it shifts the contraception burden away from women alone, men's rights activists because women bodily autonomy give them too much power, and both because of arguments on how sex feels with/without a condom. They can't agree on why it doesn't exist yet, though.

It has indentation issue, it's a wall of text, and has plenty of natter.

The entire Real Life page seems like a ROCEJ minefield. That specific set of paragraphs can at the very least be cut down.

I think some more discussion is needed as to the legitimacy of the example though. I've heard of anti-pornography feminists and stuff like that before, but have there really been "alliances" so to speak? Or is this just shoehorning?

A lot of it is either shoehorns or recent politics, which is why I proposed the time limit that started this discussion.

The page would be much less of a mess if the Politics section were limited to proper alliances made at least a decade ago, as well as shoehorns, natter, and fan myopia being removed.

When I say proper alliances, I mean those that are not shoehorned.

Question: can I report misuse here, if the misuse in question is due to the fact that the factions to whom the trope was added were not enemies or never were at conflict in the first place?

Go right on ahead. Cleaning up misuse is precisely what this thread is for.

Okay. Ahem!

Characters.Terraria has a misuse example in Brain of Cthulhu and The Crimson's folders:

Brain of Cthulhu's folder:

• Enemy Mine: Formed this with the Crimson; It defends the Crimson's hearts and aids in its spread to avenge its originator's defeat.

The Crimson's folder:

• Enemy Mine: Formed this with the Brain of Cthulhu; It provides the Brain with a place to rest, and the Brain defends the Crimson's hearts and helps it spread.

Both examples are misuse because it was never established that they were enemies in the past or even had any sort of conflict in the first place. If anything, these examples fit Villain Team-Up more.

That's no doubt misuse.

We should go after the wicks to Enemy Mine as well.

Both Enemy Mine proper and its wicks are filled with examples that fit Villain Team-Up better, as well as Odd Friendship.

I think any RL example about groups that tend to share similar opinions should be cut as shoehorning unless there's a specific example of groups directly working together, i.e. if a specific feminist group and specific right-wing group collaborated directly on an anti-porn protest. That'd probably cut a lot of the ROCEJ issues as well.

I strongly agree.

There's so many examples of groups that just have common concerns (albeit for different reasons) without working together directly.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Mar 23rd 2021 at 10:10:48 AM

Bumping just to generate more discussion

I am not familiar with every example in the modern politics section of EnemyMine.Real Life.

I just brought up the most egregious example of radical feminists and moral guardians detesting porn (despite there being no mentions of them collaborating).

Another bump

Have any of you found other pseudo-examples in the Modern Politics sub-section aside from Soapbox Sadie + Moral Guardians vs. Porn (which does not have any cases of both actively working together to fight porn and the trope description requires enemies working together to fight a common threat).

Enemy Mine isn't simply "enemies simply sharing a common threat" but "enemies working together against a common threat."

Edited by Nen_desharu on Apr 24th 2021 at 10:57:44 AM

I'm not sure if this one could be kept (EnemyMine.Real Life Modern Politics section):

• Hunters and animal-rights activists may not always see eye to eye, but they will team up to oppose development projects—especially if those projects threaten game populations, which would result in there being nothing to hunt. They'll also unite on culling an invasive species (with North-American Razorbacks providing a good example). Yes, that's right: "Thin out their numbers!" is actually a valid argument in these cases.

It contains fan myopia.

Let me summon ~mightymewtron for being more familiar with this than I am

Cut the last line. South Park didn't invent that phrase. It also may not even be an example, cuz it seems to yet again be about shared beliefs, not physically working together on a certain issue.

Removed the hunters and environmentalist pseudo-example that also contains fan myopia

I have also removed the feminists and moral guardians against porn part as they didn't actively work together and was full of natter, as well as the Slayer non-example

Here's the full feminists and moral guardians against porn example:

• Militant feminists and the religious right disagree on almost every issue except of one: they both hate pornography. The feminists feel that it's exploitative of women; the Religious Right feel that it's immoral and sinful, and also exploitative of women.
  • The odd alliance between the Religious Right and militant feminists on the subjects of porn and prostitution has been frequently lampshaded and criticized by more moderate "sex-positive" feminists. There's considerable debate in the feminist camp as to whether or not sex work is exploitative, especially when the participants are fully willing.
    • Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale blames exactly this alliance (at least in part) for the creation of Gilead.
  • Pornography can produce stranger alliances than this. ICANN recently approved a ".xxx" top-level domain for Internet porn; who opposed it? The Religious Right, who feared that it would legitimize pornography; and the porn industry, who feared that it would lead to stricter regulations.
  • Similar to the issue of the ".xxx" top-level domain for internet porn, both the Religious Right and the porn industry oppose to making it legal for women to go topless. The former believe that it's immoral; the latter fear a fall in demand.
    • But in several states (including New York) it IS legal for ANYONE to go topless, as long as they don't enter private businesses that request you not to (i.e. the famous "No shirt, no shoes, no service" rule).
  • Militant feminists and the Christian Right are also united in not caring for burqas; both backed the burqa bans in France and Belgium. Militant feminists think burqas oppress women and restrict their rights; the Christian Right fears Islamic fundamentalism spreading in Christian (or post-Christian) societies. Meanwhile, burqas are banned in several Islamic countries, creating another Enemy Mine on the other side of the fence: religious Muslims and political liberals (in the "small l" sense of "let people do what they want within reason").
    • An example of this alliance in action would be German feminist Alice Schwarzer writing books slamming Islam, publicly sympathizing with German right-wing movements like PEGIDA and AfD, and attacking Judith Butler over her support for Muslim causes. Many right-wingers in Germany (and a few German libertarians) who once hated Schwarzer now publicly embrace her, while at the same time, feminist groups started protesting against Schwarzer's public speeches.
  • Some feminists and fundamentalists also both condemn heavy rock music, both like to purge libraries of controversial books, both favor harsh 'law and order' stances against sex crimes, both suspect that that All Men Are Perverts who women must keep on the straight and narrow path, and, in extreme cases, both agree that Sex Is Evil. (Get a room, already... Oh, wait.)
  • Certain factions of the feminist movement have a strong distaste for the colour pink, just like chauvinistic dudebros. This irony is not lost on some of the moderate branches of feminism, who emphasize that you can reject the idea of prescribed gender roles (i.e., gender roles more or less explicitly enforced by society) without rejecting the whole concept of being feminine; hating pink, they say, can be misogynistic itself— although individuals may have good personal reasons to dislike the color.
  • In some countries such as France, this common opposition also extends to other issues, such as prostitution and surrogacy.
  • Some feminists and men's rights activists will agree on support for research on male contraception, feminists because it shifts the contraception burden away from women alone, men's rights activists because women bodily autonomy give them too much power, and both because of arguments on how sex feels with/without a condom. They can't agree on why it doesn't exist yet, though.

I would like a second opinion on this matter.

By the way, there's still plenty of similar examples to go.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Apr 26th 2021 at 11:17:10 AM

I have re-added the full feminists and moral guardians against porn example due to lack of consensus.

I may lead this cleanup, but I do like second opinions from others.

Honestly it should probably stay removed. This trope is about specific instances of enemies coming together to advocate for something, right? I can't remember any specific instances of the entry you re-added happening in real life, that being "alliances" between anti-porn feminists and the religious right.

On threads like this, even if there isn't a lot of consensus, I think it's alright to remove an entry if at least one person says it should not stay. If anyone complains, they can discuss it here. That's what I do on the X Killer cleanup—there isn't a lot of activity there, so I remove things when at least one person says they can go.