Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

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.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

Berrenta MOD
17th Nov, 2018 12:31:46 PM

Will call them in.

18th Nov, 2018 09:53:53 PM

Do you assume they are a "he"?

31st Dec, 2018 06:24:11 AM

FYI, just pulled an edit on Gender Dynamics Index for being agenda-driven natter (that also broke Example Indentation).

1st Jan, 2019 09:23:30 AM

Oh well, let's go through all of these. I'm a he btw and yes, I am a staunch libertarian. I am well aware of the fact that my view on things, like everyone else's, is heavily influenced by the political philosophy I adhere to. For this reason, I am taking utmost care to write in a neutral and factual style.

Everyone on this wiki, especially when writing about real life, is biased by their own worldview. The problem is that those who adhere to a mainstream worldview almost never get called out for this, since most people around are thinking alike. Just because you're mainstream, it doesn't mean that you're automatically right, so please check your own biases, before calling out mine.

So let's start with Nubian's list:

1.: Believe it or not, but 3.5 billion years of evolution did take their toll on human gender roles. One of these implications is that, since a single woman can only give birth to a finite number of children, but a single man can bear virtually unlimited offspring, women do have a higher value in an evolutionary sense.

This of course does not say anything about their value as human beings or members of society, but it does play a vital role in the formation of tropes such as Men Are the Expendable Gender, or Men Act, Women Are. You simply cannot fully understand these tropes without evolution. Since this affects many tropes revolving around Gender Dynamics and it cannot be thoroughly explained in every trope page, a Useful Notes article might be necessary here.

2.: Non-aggression is a core principle, if not the one defining principle of libertarianism. Therefore, the entry is appropriate.

3.: Warren deliberately tried to invoke the One Drop Rule, which gives a very interesting twist on this trope. My entry on Pass Fail was admittedly weak and opinionated, but this doesn't help the fact that Warren tried to pass as Native American, without much success. It was a pure coincidence that I made those two edits shortly before the elections.

4.: I actually added a link to The Gulag, which I still find very appropriate. Yes, that's what they typically do with the rich under communism.

5.: Increasing the minimum wage leads to increasing prices (aka inflation). Inflation leads to demands for increasing the minimum wage. I did exaggerate though.

6.: Well, it is Truth in Television that people with a BMI between 25 and 30 get classified as "overweight" by their doctors, although they are actually in the weight bracket with the lowest overall mortality. Btw, I did not remove the peer-reviewed journal article pointing that out, I added it.

1st Jan, 2019 09:28:04 AM

Finally, on that Gender Dynamics Index edit, which was deleted by Larkmarn:

You are clearly overstepping a boundary here. There was absolutely nothing opinionated or biased about my edit. All I said is that those are strong arguments often brought forward, which they indeed are. Since I did not make a claim about their validity, I don't see how you come to classify this edit as natter or strawmanning.

Oh, and of course there is again the issue of Example Indentation. This really is a pet issue of yours, isn't it? Well in this case, the superordinate bullet mentions how women get less consideration for jobs that require personal agency, as they are often regarded as moral patients. The two bullet points I entered below were directly related to that and are logically consistent with the argumentation of the superordinate bullet. The indentation is therefore very much appropriate.

You have now removed several of my entries that were factually correct. You did not care to improve them by writing a better text and you did not even put them up for discussion. From my standpoint, you are a straw feminist, who brings her (his?) own political agenda to the wiki, which has led you to vandalize my edits. I'm giving you the chance to either restore them or write a better text. Otherwise, I will have to report you.

1st Jan, 2019 09:54:23 AM

generalerror, attempting to use the moderation staff as a weapon like that is not something we are particularly inclined to tolerate.

1st Jan, 2019 10:04:12 AM

[ninja'd but still]

The issues brought up on November 17, 2018, were already dealt with in the Edit Banned thread.

Regarding Gender Dynamics Index, I have to agree with Larkmarn. The information you added was written in a conversational style (Conversation in the Main Page) with two sub-bullets rather than one when no sub-bullets were particularly necessary (Example Indentation).

Also, you're trying to name-call now. Like how is that helpful calling someone a "straw feminist."

Edited by WaterBlap
1st Jan, 2019 01:07:58 PM

Should we revert all these edits by generalerror? Most are still there and they have issues.

Edited by miraculous
1st Jan, 2019 01:08:21 PM

So, only going to respond to the defenses of my pulls, all of which I obviously stand by.

  • Men Act, Women Are: Here's the edit reason for why I pulled it: Failed to revert this, which is hopelessly broad, tried to break Example Indentation, is more correctly covered by its intended bullet point, misusing Unfortunate Implications, and just weak. Are any of my points incorrect? Admittedly, "just weak" is subjective, but everything else is true. If it were to be added, it would have to be in a manner that explains how it would apply, rather than trying to justify its application.
  • Pass Fail and One Drop Rule: Okay, this is where it gets fun.
    • One Drop Rule: The text of the deleted entry: ** In an inversion, Democratic congresswoman Elizabeth Warren conducted a DNA test as proof of her native American ancestry, which found that she likely had a native ancestor six to ten generations ago. Whether or not this makes her a native American under the one-drop rule, is subject to your political leaning. So, biggest thing here is the inaccuracy, which is largely due to the blatant agenda. See, here's the thing. The only ones claiming One Drop Rule is in effect is her detractors. She never said "I'm native American" or applied for membership or Native rights, she just said "My family said we have native blood and told stories about it" and people who didn't like her called her a liar. So the last sentence is blatantly false, and the only sentence that ties it into the trope.
    • Pass Fail: Again, never tried to pass. So want to talk about "factually correct"? Sure. The entry: ** In a similar move, Democratic congresswoman Elizabeth Warren tried to pass as native American, entering Harvard Law School under minority quotas in the 1980s and using her alleged heritage in order to pander to native American voters. Although a DNA test revealed that Warren likely had a native ancestor six to ten generations back, the Cherokee Nation did not let her pass.
      • 1: Again, didn't try to pass. Literally the only time she's on record as claiming to "be" Cherokee was when she wrote to a cookbook in the 80s.
      • 2: She went to Rutgers Law, not Harvard. Or do you mean taught? Because "entered" is a weird way to say that. Also, she taught in the 90s. Also, the "minority quotas" thing is complete conjecture based on literally nothing.
      • 3: So, you know she didn't bring up her heritage when she ran in 2012, right? She only defended herself after it was brought up, right? Generally if you're trying to pander, you, you know, bring something up rather than wait for people to attack you with it. Just sayin'.
      • 4: This is true, the Cherokee Nation didn't admit her. Which isn't really the same as a Pass Fail since she wasn't applying. It's like saying I don't have English heritage because I can't get a UK passport (that I also never applied for).
  • Gender Dynamics: My edit reason: I mean, aside from natter and example indentation, it's just offering one side of the argument and strawmanning another unrelated argument. Now, which part of this is incorrect? It was weirdly shoved in, broke rules in doing so, and rather poorly. It's not making a statement, it's making an argument. And the second bullet point was just a blatant Straw Feminist argument (funny you should call me one, actually).

So, yeah. You're not wrong that I keep bringing up Example Indentation, but shouldn't that be more telling that you keep breaking it?

1st Jan, 2019 01:24:10 PM

... okay, know what? I lied. I have to comment on some of the other edits. Because they're kind of odd. Like, I might not have cut them but I definitely wouldn't be defending them:

  • Technical Pacifist: I think you're misinterpreting the trope, since gun ownership is kind of the opposite of a Technical Pacifist. Technical Pacifists can be aggressive as all hell, they just won't kill. A non-aggressive gun bearer isn't aggressive, but implicitly fine with using lethal force.
  • Just Like Robin Hood: You know Communism and Stalinism aren't synonyms, right? Like, not in a "well, Stalin wasn't a real communist, man!" but in the sense that something that applies to a more specific version doesn't apply to the larger umbrella.
  • Slippery Slope Fallacy: ... you're literally committing the fallacy in the entry. That's what you're doing. And it's natter and breaking example indentation to boot. By your own admission it's exaggeration and it's idle speculation.
  • Hollywood Pudgy: Aside from being a general example (frowned upon) and adding a Real Life example to a No Real Life Examples Please page, I mostly have to just say BMI is garbage and people put as much stock in them as they do lie-detectors.

Like, personal politics aside, these just aren't good edits.

Edited by Larkmarn
1st Jan, 2019 02:29:06 PM

Politics aside, seeing as debating over political points will get us literally nowhere, we're not here to trope reality. Adding edit after edit regarding real-life situations rather than the world of fiction like we're supposed to be discussing, and then getting defensive over people contesting these edits which miss the point entirely and dragging politics into it shows you just might not get the problem. You're bringing up controversial subjects, claiming they're just facts, and then getting upset when people do something about it.

1st Jan, 2019 07:54:59 PM

@Deadbeatloser 22: I am not trying to use the moderators as a weapon, but I will very well report someone who keeps deleting my edits for murky reasons. So let's go through Larkmarn's reasons:

  • Men Act, Women Are
    • "Hopelessly broad": I could go into much more detail, outlining the complex relationship between evolutionary processes and social constructs, how they affect human perception of gender roles and how gender roles are subsequently worked up in the media, but that would be hopelessly long. As I already said, elaborating on this subject thoroughly would likely require a Useful Notes page.
    • "tried to break Example Indentation": I did incorporate an already existing example as a sub-bullet, because it provided a particularly good example for what I had written. The indentation is therefore correct.
    • "is more correctly covered by its intended bullet point": I can't quite follow you here. Which intended bullet point do you mean?
    • "misusing Unfortunate Implication": I wanted to imply that, although the trope has some origins in evolutionary psychology, this does NOT justify having this trope omnipresent in the media. If you have a better way of expressing that, feel free to make improvements.
  • One Drop Rule: I have to correct you here. Warren said that she is proud of her native heritage. To quote her: "Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born".
    • Also, NONE of her detractors claim that the One Drop Rule is in place here and that Warren should actually be considered to have a native American lineage. Some of her supporters (and obviously herself on the other hand, do. This is to explain my last sentence.
  • Pass Fail: OK, I already said that this one is in fact a bad edit. It is however wrong to say that Warren never tried to pass. She did list herself as native American in the AALS desk book, which kicked off the whole controversy. Then she decided to release her DNA test results, as if that would suppose to prove anything and offended members of the Cherokee Nation by doing so. I do strongly believe that this affair highly deserves an entry under Pass Fail.
  • Gender Dynamics Index: Seriously, I fail to see how any of what I wrote fits the definition of Natter.
    • First of all, I did not refute anything with my edit. If the superordinate bullet point (which you did not remove) is true, then what I wrote underneath is logically true as well. There is just no discussion to be had around there.
    • My edit wasn't opinionated. You said that I had only covered one side of the argument. In fact, I did not take any side, writing in a neutral fashion in order to prevent a discussion from erupting. If I had written something like "There is argument X, but then again, there is argument Y. And then, there is argument Z", that would have been Natter.
    • Both bullet points have a direct relationship to superordinate bullet. The indentation is correct.

Edited by generalerror
1st Jan, 2019 08:01:21 PM

Errm, talking about example indentation, you just aren't supposed to add a subbullet unless both examples are subbullets. You don't just add onto an example with an extra bullet. I won't comment on the rest of this mess except to say my point still stands and that is that you are missing the point.

1st Jan, 2019 08:19:43 PM

Enough. Clearly our previous warnings about agenda-based editing and indentation did not get through.

Edited by nombretomado
2nd Jan, 2019 01:54:30 AM

I am also closing this query as attaching a second report about a troper to another report is usually more confusing than clarifying.


Example of: