Rework: Acceptable Targets

I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that the trope "Acceptable Targets" implies that the target shouldn't be acceptable as a target. This is somewhat troubling when the KKK are included in the list, as are the Nazis. Is this or is this not cause for a revamp/split?

edited 3rd Nov '10 6:28:08 PM by DonZabu

We already have Unacceptable Targets to mean the exact same definition you're trying to pin on Acceptable Targets (i.e. the opposite of what an Acceptable Target would actually be).

I don't see why Nazis and the KKK wouldn't qualify as Acceptable Targets. They're usually the first ones anyone would ever target.

edited 3rd Nov '10 6:31:13 PM by SeanMurrayI

I disagree that Acceptable Targets implies that the target should not be acceptable; it implies only that the zeitgeist says the target is acceptable.

edited 3rd Nov '10 6:34:21 PM by rodneyAnonymous

-Double post-

edited 3rd Nov '10 6:31:01 PM by SeanMurrayI

The KKK are in the Acceptable Political Targets list. People with speech impediments are in the Acceptable Hard Luck Targets page. Both of these are subsets of Acceptable Targets. One of these things is not like the other.

Yes, targets are deemed "acceptable" for different reasons. Note that those tropes are flagged Subjective. Oh, no they aren't, only Unacceptable Targets is flagged. Should they be, or am I wrong?

edited 3rd Nov '10 6:35:43 PM by rodneyAnonymous

^It sounds only fair that they should.

Are they really subjective, though? I figured the idea was something like "If you openly mock this group, it's not going to cause any controversy." It's a page about popular culture, not the opinions of the site's users. Whether or not you think the targets really are acceptable has nothing to do with the page.

I figured the idea was something like "If you openly mock this group, it's not going to cause any controversy."

Yeah, that's either subjective or false. The best you could say objectively is "it's unlikely to cause any controversy", which is pretty weak. "Personal opinions about which targets are acceptable are irrelevant" is an objection to an argument that wasn't made.

For the time being, can't we give examples like the KKK their own subdivision, like Anti Democratic Targets? And I do agree the the subjectivity here. There's pretty much an interest group for every target here.

So it would be a stretch to think that this trope implies that the target shouldn't be acceptable as a target?

Yes.

Just because something is often mocked, ridiculed, or downright bashed in the media doesn't necessarily mean it's something completely innocent an harmless. True, most of the things on these lists are groups that are criticized and looked down upon in unfair ways despite the fact that there's really nothing wrong with them, but that doesn't change the fact that harmful groups such as the KKK or Nazis are also considered targets by many media works.

Should we get a lock on this thread? There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with this page, and the conversation about it is dead.

If the tropes are (A.) about a target being acceptable according to the narrative of the story, then they are not subjective.

That whole thing about (B.) "Zeitgeist", however, that's creepy subjective nonsense - such tropes should get a huge subjective flag.

However, I think Acceptable Targets is a very useful trope as long as it's contained to the (A.) sense.

I just skimmed through a few pf the pages, and boy are they a mess. They seem to run on a mix of three core definitions: A & B from my previous post, as well as: C. In at least one work, some character or plottwist might be interpreted as picking on some group or some person belonging to some group.

I'm tempted to suggest Kill It with Fire and start over, but I know that's overly drastic.

Seriously, the way the whole thing has turned out, it's not fun to read, it doesn't really give anything about how groups are portrayed in media, and it reinforces prejudice.

Anyway. I couldn't find Chick Tracts anywherem and didn't see an Acceptable Targets example on the Chick Tracts page. Writing the example now, but I'll only publish it here for now. Running on definithion A, the definition we IMHO ought to be using.

• Acceptable Targets: These tracts tend to portray all groups except hardcore evangelical christians as acceptable targets. Yes, they even target evangelical christians sometimes, for not being hardcore enough. Favourite targets are homosexuals (portrayed as posessed by demons), chatolics, muslims and freemasons (portrayed as worshipping demons), atheists (portrayed as being demons) and people who are not creationists (portrayed as nazis, with one tract implying that On The Origin Of The Species and Mein Kampf are actually the same book).

There's a shitload of natter, but most of it can be lumped together instead of deleted outright. The page itself seems fine.

And I'm not sure how this could be considered subjective, at least not by criteria that would put every page on this wiki under the "subjective" banner.

^ By your definition, the page would become "any group that someone insults". It's objective, but meaningless.

edited 4th Dec '10 6:58:12 AM by Anthologist

I'm using three definitions, and it seems all three are used on those pages. The third definition does indeed boil down to "any group that someone insults", and that seem to be the bottom line of these pages. Meaningless? Well, that's what I felt last night. However, today I feel that such a humongous list of groups that someone somewhere might insult does after all fill a purpouse - it points out that everyone is someone's "Acceptable target".

I think a stricter definition would be MUCH more useful, but cleaning up the mess is too messy. Lets just split the whole thing into narrow tropes (that are objective and strict) and wide tropes (that are objective in the sense that they welcome a wide range of subjectivity, and gets the YMMV tag.

So, lets keep the current tropes wide and messy, and start new ones that are more strict, limiting themselves squarely to groups being portrayed in works as acceptable, once acceptable, or unacceptable as targets:

• Designated Acceptable Targets
• Declared Once Acceptable Targets
• Declared Unacceptable Targets

I don't see a reason to create entirely new pages to replace the existing ones when we can just fix the existing pages.

That's fine with me, as long as the fix is narrowing the trope down to the strict definition.

So then what exactly is our "strict" definition, and how rigid a guideline are we asking for while still maintaining that Tropes Are Flexible?

When I'm thinking of Acceptable Targets, I'm thinking of "social groups that people commonly get away with ridiculing without provoking a Real Life public outcry or controversy."

First issue.

The main division is this: Is the basis for a target being acceptable or not within Real Life, or is it whithin the narrative of the individual work?

With the three new tropes I suggested, the distinction would be this:

• Acceptable Targets: Acceptable according to some Real Life source
• Designated Acceptable Targets: Acceptable according to the narrative of the work which is an example.

If we should have both these definitions - should we have them as the same trope, or as separate tropes?

The main division is this: Is the basis for a target being acceptable or not within Real Life, or is it within the narrative of the individual work?

I haven't seen any such division anywhere. In fact, I don't even see either of the two interpretations you give as the intended focus of the Acceptable Targets pages in the first place.

If anything Acceptable Targets are merely "distinguished and identifiable social groups that are commonly targeted in fiction (not Real Life) to very little to no public outcry."

It should definitely not have anything to do with targeting anybody in Real Life, and should be a lot more than detailing targets from individual works.

edited 5th Dec '10 11:13:04 AM by SeanMurrayI

Second issue.

Having "tropes" that define what is acceptable or not in real life is HIGHLY problematic.

This thread started with a guy pointing out that the current form have a Godwin's Law element to it, with having all kind sof groups defined as acceptable at equal terms with nazis and pedophiles. This is a real problem, and is made MUCH worse with the current natter-laden definition.

This second issue isn't a big one, I'll just clear up the natter a bit and change the disclaimer so it becomes coherent and less laden with Unfortunate Implications. Should be done in 10 minutes or so.

Having "tropes" that define what is acceptable or not in real life is HIGHLY problematic.

While I agree, I'm not exactly getting this vibe from these pages.

The OP also had nothing to do with Godwin's Law.

edited 5th Dec '10 10:32:24 AM by SeanMurrayI