TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Do we really need this?: Unfortunate Implications

Go To

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#151: Sep 18th 2010 at 11:28:04 AM

I recall linking various things to Unfortunate Implications, only to have someone else link it to another trope (ie. when editing Ocarina Of Time, my entry for Even Evil Has Standards led to Unfortunate Implications before later edited to Moral Dissonance.) I think Unfortunate Implications is poorly named. It SEEMED like it was about when the implications of something are unfortunate. And yet, it's really more along the lines of politically-incorrect implications, as opposed to morally-unfortunate implications, etc...

Mimimurlough Since: Apr, 2009
#152: Sep 18th 2010 at 11:50:26 AM

Yes, the page quote is unfitting in a similar manner. On the other hand, it's not recommended to rename a trope as huge as this one.

DragonQuestZ The Other Troper from Somewhere in California Since: Jan, 2001
The Other Troper
#153: Sep 18th 2010 at 12:12:54 PM

"it's not recommended to rename a trope as huge as this one"

Unless the misuse is really out of control.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Mimimurlough Since: Apr, 2009
#154: Sep 18th 2010 at 12:25:25 PM

That is true. If it would be necessary, I'd suggest a simple Unfortunate Dicrimination Implication, or something of the llike. The Unfortunate and implications part are probably vital to avoid confusion of what this is supposed to be for. (granted, it seems to get confused a lot anyway)

silver2195 Since: Jan, 2001
#155: Sep 18th 2010 at 3:03:23 PM

I would be fine with the namespace idea if the namespace was called It Just Offends Me or something similar. My issue with this trope is mostly that it's not just subjective, but subjective in the same manner as Fridge Logic: it attracts Natter. The namespace allows us to embrace the Natter.

edited 18th Sep '10 3:05:04 PM by silver2195

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
MegaJ Since: Oct, 2009
silver2195 Since: Jan, 2001
#157: Sep 18th 2010 at 6:08:19 PM

^ Sounds OK to me.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#158: Sep 18th 2010 at 6:14:35 PM

None of those alternatives really narrow it down. It seems to be almost exclusively about politically-incorrect tropes, whether from a xenophobia perspective or a gender and sexuality perspective. We need something a little more specific to political correctness.

PrimoVictoria Since: Dec, 1969
#159: Sep 19th 2010 at 12:27:50 AM

It's not about political-correctness. Political-correctness is censorship in for of banning everything that may be offensife. This is just poiting out that osmething may be offensive.

Making it namespace will allow to make discussions about those unfortunate implications, which will stop natter by explanations and justifications, as namespaces seems more friend to discussions that trope pages by being far more subiective.

There is no problem with it that it will look like we encourage searching for UF? Why would it be? We're tvtropes, we encourage searching for trope examples. And in that case every one may be explained/discussed so no harm will happen if there will be some more of it.

Mimimurlough Since: Apr, 2009
#160: Sep 19th 2010 at 3:14:18 AM

^ well said.

As for a name, we run a risk of diminishing the speakers if we use names along the lines of offense or Is It Just Me. I'd suggest something more neutral. Would Hegemony Alert or Societal Structure Alert be too obscure?

Edit: prejudice alert?

edited 19th Sep '10 3:18:29 AM by Mimimurlough

Leaper Since: May, 2009
#161: Sep 19th 2010 at 3:30:34 AM

Here's something I've wondered which might clear up some of the objections: under what circumstances, if any, can someone's sighting of an Unfortunate Implication be evaluated and cut? Ever?

One reason I ask is that I once asked about one I found in the Commercials section that seemed, to me, clearly unreasonable. I was reluctant to do so, because I was under the impression that any and all things anyone could see would be accepted and noted without discouragement. I posted about it, and was surprised to see the posters in the thread encourage me to cut it, so I did.

Now, a lot of stuff I've read in this thread has sent me back to "we don't cut anyone's impression ever, because it's sure true for them" side, so I'm asking.

edited 19th Sep '10 3:31:16 AM by Leaper

Mimimurlough Since: Apr, 2009
#162: Sep 19th 2010 at 3:42:20 AM

I'd put it down to how well it is justified. If there can be a convincing case made for it, it should probably stay, but none is given, it should probably be cut. To take up a cut in discussion is a good idea, since that's the best way of making an informed decision.

Martello Hammer of the Pervs from Black River, NY Since: Jan, 2001
Hammer of the Pervs
#163: Sep 19th 2010 at 5:38:23 AM

Would you justify the Three Laws-Compliant leap of logic to "white people should own slaves" argument?

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
PrimoVictoria Since: Dec, 1969
#164: Sep 19th 2010 at 12:38:40 PM

Martello, you just stick to that one example like Marvel fans to bashing Bendis. Is this the only reason you're mad? Because of one trope on the list?

DragonQuestZ The Other Troper from Somewhere in California Since: Jan, 2001
The Other Troper
#165: Sep 19th 2010 at 12:45:26 PM

He never got a clear answer on that, so he is justified in wanting one.

The fact that robots are usually slaves in fiction is where the UI comes from. It was just Turned On Their Masters annoyed Isaac Asimov due to it being sensationalizing science fiction instead of using it to explore questions. Thus the three laws were a way to only avoid that trope. So the UI isn't the slavery itself, but as way of brainwashing the slave.

Then again, the "we must serve the good of humanity by enslaving them" program is a way of turning the laws, and the implications, on their heads.

edited 19th Sep '10 12:46:26 PM by DragonQuestZ

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#166: Sep 19th 2010 at 2:05:07 PM

So even Asimov couldn't resist Turned Against Their Masters in the end.

Fight smart, not fair.
DragonQuestZ The Other Troper from Somewhere in California Since: Jan, 2001
The Other Troper
#167: Sep 19th 2010 at 7:15:39 PM

But not in the "rampaging robot" manner.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Mimimurlough Since: Apr, 2009
#168: Sep 19th 2010 at 10:49:23 PM

Still, can we stick to the issue?

Martello Hammer of the Pervs from Black River, NY Since: Jan, 2001
Hammer of the Pervs
#169: Sep 19th 2010 at 11:09:09 PM

^Any discussion of the tropes on this page is "the issue." We're trying to figure out if the examples are valid or not, or if the "trope" is so subjective that it's impossible to establish validity, which is my argument.

"Martello, you just stick to that one example like Marvel fans to bashing Bendis. Is this the only reason you're mad? Because of one trope on the list?" That's kind of an odd simile to use, especially because I've never read Bendis so I don't even know what you're talking about. Then there's the fact that I mentioned the Three Laws-Compliant inclusion on Unfortuante Implications only on the 6th page of this discussion. Have you even read anything that's been said?

DQZ, thanks for paying attention and also giving me a reasonable explanation. I see how that could work but I still think it's a stretch.

What I really don't understand is that somehow I'm demonized because I don't see racism in every turn of phrase and plot device. And that makes me a racist somehow? I don't get it.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
DragonQuestZ The Other Troper from Somewhere in California Since: Jan, 2001
The Other Troper
#170: Sep 19th 2010 at 11:14:17 PM

Racists see racists things as not racist, but true and factual. That's the logic in that accusation, even if the context of your comments make that accusation faulty.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Martello Hammer of the Pervs from Black River, NY Since: Jan, 2001
Hammer of the Pervs
#171: Sep 19th 2010 at 11:32:23 PM

^Right, I understand the point.

And like you said, I'm not trying to say that the tropes listed on UI are true or right or anything like that. My point is that anything can be taken as offensive if said to the wrong people in the wrong way, and to try to make a list of tropes that can be seen that way is useless and counter to the mission of the wiki, at least as I see it. It's like a This Might Be Offensive Disclaimer and I don't think we need that.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
Mimimurlough Since: Apr, 2009
HersheleOstropoler You gotta get yourself some marble columns from BK.NY.US Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Less than three
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
#173: Sep 20th 2010 at 11:27:03 AM

Racists see racist things as not racist, but true and factual.
Right. And the fact that a man doesn't see something as misogynist, a straight person doesn't see something as homophobic, etc. doesn't mean that a woman or LGBT person who does see it that way is wrong or hypersensitive or looking to take offense. Saying "some people like to be aggrieved" is undeniably true but not in and of itself a sufficient counterargument in any particular case. Saying "well, I don't see it as offensive," especially if you're not the sort of person is supposedly offends, is similarly not in and of itself a sufficient counterargument in any particular case.

That said, while I don't care enough to do it myself, it wouldn't break my heart if examples in Unfortunate Implications were pruned to those in which there were protests or complaints.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#174: Sep 20th 2010 at 11:35:04 AM

"Political-correctness is censorship in for of banning everything that may be offensife. This is just poiting out that osmething may be offensive." - Primo Victoria

Uh, no, offensiveness is subjective. In theory almost anything could be found "offensive" but these tropes are mostly related to xenophobia, homophobia, and sexism. Maybe political correctness might not be the best phrase to describe this, but it is better than Unfortunate Implications.

edited 20th Sep '10 11:35:53 AM by neoYTPism

PrimoVictoria Since: Dec, 1969
#175: Sep 20th 2010 at 11:46:34 AM

^ UI points tropes that are offensive in most obvious way, with clear analogy, not ones that requires to wrap them around in some kind of Insane Troll Logic to be seen as offensive.

Hershele Ostropoler - You know that not every man is mysgonist and not every straight is homophobic, right? What you said doesn't make sense, it's like implying every white person is racist.


Total posts: 254
Top