Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Why isnt this trope No Real Life Examples Please?
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
That's a general example and should be nuked.
It needs to be run through the RL Maintenance thread and voted on in the crowner to have the possibility of being NRLEP.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Who wrote that?
Even if it wasn't a general example, it's not (a) Frivolous Lawsuit(s).
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I've removed it, as is it's not an example and probably just complaining about MRA.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
@jameygamer: A troper by the name of Rob Tan wrote that entry on January 19th, 2016. Here's the expanded history
that shows them adding it.
The original edit was more blatant and linked the MRA part to He-Man Woman Hater, so I made a cursory inspection of his edits for similar behavior but I couldn't find any. I didn't look that hard though.
This should be a "No Real Life Examples" page. Many of the subjects / people listed under the Real Life section now are very flame-war-bait-like (like: Donald Trump, Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, etc....) Let's just not go there.
Should someone send the troper who added that a warning PM?
Judging by the fact that it was added over a year ago by that user, it probably won't be necessary.
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report
On that note, would the lawsuits regarding the women-only Wonder Woman showings qualify as frivolous? I doubt it, but it's good to check.
I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.
As Maddy said in the RL Maintenance thread, court records are generally a matter of public record. (At least in the US and many other countries.) So it's easy to tell which lawsuits the judge(s) bounced right out the door for being ridiculous. It takes some merit to get past that initial hearing.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
A frivolous lawsuit isn't just one that sounds stupid. It's one that has no legal merit. The Wonder Woman suits may be frivolous, or may not be, depending on how broadly the laws regarding discrimination are written. That' s why the lawsuits in the example that kicked this whole discussion off aren't frivolous: the California law is phrased so broadly that any event that is only open to one class of people, determined by a "protected" status (You can't discriminate based on sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation and a few others,) is illegal. Sex is a protected factor, but "female" is not. So by a strict reading of the letter of the law, female-only events are just as illegal as male-only ones.
Edited by Madrugada ...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I like Real Life sections where they're appropriate, but this does seem like it should be an NRLEP page.
I was browsing the Frivolous Lawsuit page for some laughs when I noticed the following example:
"Men's Rights Activists in California have filed numerous lawsuits against women-only events, professional groups and social clubs, ranging from mother's day promotions to networking events for female business owners. Since California's anti-discrimination laws are so broadly worded, they often win because the defendants technically are engaged in gender discrimination (in the same way that a man-only event would be such and hence could and would be attacked by "feminists"), and, since the law also forces unsuccessful defendants to pay plaintiff's legal fees, they've cost a lot of people a lot of money."
This honestly looks more like activist complaining than a legitimate example, with the writer even going as far as to borderline admit the lawsuits aren't frivolous at all, and seems very close to a violation of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement. Given how heated this sort of thing can be, I decided to ask here whether this seemed like an appropriate example rather than risk stirring up an Edit War by deleting it on my own.
Edited by SeptimusHeap