Ask The Tropers

No. Restore it.

I don't think that's too controversial.

And even if I didn't agree with it moments are YMMV and opinions and therefore deleting others opinions is a bit of a no-no anyway.

We have a ROCEJ thread for this kind of thing, which Lucien Ren does not appear to have consulted before making this deletion. Given this and the fact that J. K. Rowling's own creator page acknowledges her anti-trans views and the public's criticism thereof, there doesn't seem to be any reason to consider this "too controversial".

... also for the record, "cis" is a normal word which does not need to be capslocked.

I've restored it with a link to this thread.

^ Also, thanks :)

To vaguely play devil's advocate, I don't think Lucien is saying it's controversial whether or not Rowling is a transphobe, she pretty much outright says it herself. The question is whether that's a bad thing or not, which some people disagree with, and by citing this as a moment of awesome, the wiki is tacitly saying transphobia is bad.

... which I am okay with.

TBH while I'm also okay with this particular individual example, I actually did think (and generally endorse) that wiki policy isn't on board with listing Internet personalities delivering angry rants at real people as Awesome Moments. Like, I'm pretty sure this has come up multiple times on cleanup threads.

Yeah, we certainly don't want to pander to the sort of readers who'd disagree with something as basic as "Transphobia bad". There's no need to pretend the wiki takes a neutral stance on these things, so long as people don't go on a soapbox in unrelated areas (or more generally to the point of a political wonk).

I'm with nrjxll. Regardless of validity, it doesn't strike me as appropriate for the wiki.

I don't see a problem with keeping this.

I almost brought up the same issue as nrjxll, as generally I do think that's not kosher but this one seemed fine since the example really is focused on the review itself, not his personal views. The awesomeness isn't "the critic dislikes transphobes" so much as "the review doesn't tiptoe around the topic and the final verdict aligns with that" which feels more valid and tied to the work than your standard rant.

I'd more worry that Zero Punctuation is about both a person and a channel, and if the Awesome.Zero Punctuation example is about Yahtzee's take and not specifically about the content of the video, it's going to be on a thin line for Real Life Troping. ROCEJ is one thing, but the subject of the example is worth checking as well.

Hello: You win, but I decided to remove the mention of the C-word.

Using a sexist term against someone shouldn't be an "Awesome" Moment, even if the woman in question is someone controversial.

^ I'm a woman and I don’t consider cunt sexist. A curse word, yes, but not a sexist one.

Plus your attiude here is erm, off-putting to say the least.

So apparently Lucien Ren removed the entry again before readdng it minus the reference to the C-Word. I'm unsure if it is now an edit war but I felt like bringing it up was a good idea.

I'm pretty neutral on the entry as a whole.

I mean. It's a gendered swear but ironically that makes it kinda unisex.

... especially considering Yahtzee lives in Australia where it's not even really a swear.

^ He actually moved to America a while ago and was born in England, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm another one of the opinion that reviewers making angry rants shouldn't be considered Awesome. But that would mean removing many other examples from that page.

^I mean, that's the whole reason I spoke up in the first place - I don't have a problem with the wiki insulting Rowling's transphobia, and I even agree with Larkmarn that the entry's primary focus here is on the fact that the review explicitly calls it out by name (rather than some "controversial views" boilerplate), not the rant itself. But the way it's written implies that just calling Yahtzee's profane rants about real people Awesome is the norm for that subpage, and that does seem like a problem.

As said in comments above - I'm not sure that a reviewer's furious rant against a real life target should really count as awesome. Even when that target holds problematic views.

I'm not sure why people can't or shouldn't find that awesome. I don't exactly think that myself but that's were moments being YMMV. It doesn't have to be a universally held opinion to be listed on the page.

This might need to spin off to this thread.

Honestly we cut mentioning reviewers using a reason you suck speeches of real peiple due to being way too volaotle. Don't see why this gets a pass.

^Yeah but uh were moving way into personal stuff. Plus you know it works fine if it's a reviewer on a polticial spetrucm your in. Not so much when they aren't and are stuff like Mauler and the critical drinker talking about "woke media"...

The thing is, basically all of Yahtzee's content consists of angry rants of one sort or another.

e: nvm

Even though it's true that these pages are YMMV and aren't based around universally held opinions, I'm inclined to feel that a real-life person aggressively insulting another real-life person falls outside the definition of what TV Tropes should be considering an "Awesome" moment.

Guys, cleanup thread.