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)

25th Mar, 2020 01:26:06 AM

What the hell even IS those entries? It just reeks of "Look at me! Look at how centrist I am! I'm better because I don't care about anything but the status quo!"

This part in particular: "A neutral/apolitical work? Fence-sitting is tacit approval of oppression!"

As well as this one: "In any case, it's great fun to watch from the sidelines, though such debates can descend into extremely ugly or even outright dangerous territory depending on the people involved, as both parties tend to be inordinately fond of dragging it into real life and making it personal."

Yeah, this strikes me as written by someone who just wanted to look cool over how much they don't care about things.

Not sure what part of this seems "certainly accurate" to you, but holy crap, dude.

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 03:56:44 AM

OMG that aint right. What should we do?

25th Mar, 2020 07:03:36 AM

Accurate in the sense that, like I said in the OP I've come across some really petty people who do engage in that specific kind of wank where they will vitriolically hate a given work in their circle for not making a strong enough stance for/against their pet issue even though it has no particular reason to come up (sometimes even when it does), so yes it's technically true of the entry, but also to get this granular about a Vocal Minority among the Vocal Minority is what's bogging the entry down.

Edited by AlleyOop
25th Mar, 2020 07:56:41 AM

If you squint hard enough, you can find any person who vaguely fits the description of even the most exaggerated stereotype.

As I said before, the entry goes out of its way to paint both progressive and reactionary positions with the same blatant "both sides" narrative. That makes it incredibly easy to associate ANY person who has ever, say, stated that a trope is inherently racist with being a "PC Crusader".

25th Mar, 2020 10:32:30 AM

I personally contributed a lot for the entry of Un-PC Crusader, it got trimmed down once, and I tried my best to keep it both objective and general, as well as trying to avoid overlap with other types of Hatedumb. I would still be open to reword it if necessary.

I do agree with NubianStyress on the third bullet, and I think it should go for the same reasons they say.

25th Mar, 2020 12:50:34 PM

Oh for sure, the third bullet is completely extraneous and unnecessary. We can probably delete that right now, although the above two need quite a lot of condensing to become Clear, Concise, Witty.

25th Mar, 2020 12:51:23 PM

I don't remember it being a Wall of Text about a year or so ago. I think It could do with a revert to an earlier state. Either that or deleting those entries altogether. I think I also remember the two parts that Nubian brought up were always there, even before the person who really felt the itch to rant elongated it.

Edited by PlasmaPower
25th Mar, 2020 01:23:25 PM

I'm against deleting them altogether, considering that they are legitimate examples of how the fandom can take things too far.

25th Mar, 2020 01:38:59 PM

Right, these sort of fans exist, we just need to clean them up.

25th Mar, 2020 01:56:26 PM

Again, you can take any stereotype and say "these types of people exist". However, there's a lot of False Equivalence going on in those examples.

I'm not against keeping them, but they should be trimmed to like a sentence or two each. Three at most.

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 02:53:20 PM

A sentence is too much, but they should be trimmed to being around a paragraph long on par with the other entries in length, as opposed to an entire page's worth.

25th Mar, 2020 03:11:05 PM

I still think we should keep them extremely brief, mostly to avoid what I mentioned before about gross exaggerations and false equivalences.

For example:

  • The "PC Crusader" is an irritating Soapbox Sadie who will try to shame and discredit any person for any "problematic" or "un-woke" behavior no matter how insignificant or irrelevant. They give people who are trying to raise actual awareness of social issues a bad name.
  • The "Anti-PC Crusader" is an over-sensitive reactionary who responds to any forms of diversity or attempts to do away with problematic tropes or elements with cries of "pandering to SJWs". More extreme examples have even tried to dox or send death threats to these critics or creators, making it nigh-impossible to discuss the problem with any nuance.

25th Mar, 2020 03:13:24 PM

Really the main problem with Hate Dumb is that it's redundant with Hatedom. Hate Dumb is "Hatedom, but more" and with an extra dose of Complaining about People Not Liking the Show.

25th Mar, 2020 03:22:19 PM

That's not that great of a rewrite either honestly.

25th Mar, 2020 03:24:33 PM

Why isn't this page locked, anyway?

25th Mar, 2020 03:26:34 PM

Edit: Nevermind, misread your response.

Yeah, locking the page might be for the best.

Edited by DrPsyche
25th Mar, 2020 03:27:29 PM

Dr Psyche — Would you mind explaining what's wrong with it?

EDIT: Note, I'm not against axing the whole thing and even axing the page itself if it comes down to it. But some people here seem to think there's merit, so I'm trying.

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 03:30:14 PM

It's still using the trope page as complaining. That and it's like a Broken Base entry that's too one sided.

25th Mar, 2020 03:47:50 PM

Geesh! These two entries were there since the page's inception in 2010, and have since gone through numerous changes overtime. How did they slip through the cracks? Because the very content of these entries are an obvious red flag. They should've been nuked right from the gate.

With that said, I think the page itself is very iffy and prone to complaining misuse. I wouldn't mind cutlisting it completely if clean-up is not worth it.

25th Mar, 2020 03:50:35 PM

^ That would require TRS (not that I'm not inherently opposed to cutting it, I'm just saying).

Otherwise though a lock would be super helpful.

As for the rewrite, I think they're fine, maybe a little too lopsidedly negative on the Anti-PC part but it's not like any biased information is there, so it's not a bad thing really.

25th Mar, 2020 03:52:00 PM

^^^ Exactly how do you write anything critical of either "side" without it being complainy? Again, what you're saying is why I personally think it should be nuked but I tried to write that in the most neutral language I could. Not sure what about it is one-sided, either.

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 04:40:30 PM

^ It's not really, it just reads a little more negative on the Anti-PC side, partially because of the doxing issue being referenced when there's no equivalent for the PC-side, but again that's not an issue with bias because it's true, it just comes off as slightly unbalanced. But it's better than adding a ton of fluff just to make it more balanced, so it's fine.

25th Mar, 2020 04:46:58 PM

^x10 One thing that feels biased in the rewrites is that the part about doxxing/death threats is specifically part of the Un-PC Crusader's description. Without going into specifics, I have heard about people fitting the PC Crusader's description engaging in such behavior.

25th Mar, 2020 04:52:42 PM

I mentioned the shaming and discrediting because, in general, that is about the most uniform behavior that we see from that "side". Based on prior history of the-hashtag-that-shall-not-be-named, Pizzagate, and pretty much anything dealing with Star Wars, the doxing and harassment from the anti-PC side seems to fairly uniform as well.

I know you said it's fine, but I want to reiterate that I'm trying to avoid False Equivalence; not every argument comes down to "both sides".

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 04:58:15 PM

^ Right, that's why I said that it's umbalanced but not a big deal if we're aiming for accuracy over Galaxy-Brain Centrism.

25th Mar, 2020 05:08:55 PM

^^^Not just heard, I've personally seen some "PC brigade"-type fans engage in doxxing/death threats towards creators firsthand. Philosophy Tube (who is by all means a leftist directly concerned with SJ issues) also talked about being on the receiving end of both doxxing and death threats over these issues less than a week ago here, and points out that the attacks from the "PC Brigade"-type haters were far more vicious than the ones coming from literal neo-Nazis and bigots.

No they're not equivalent but it's unfair to pretend that it's not a thing with either, and acknowledging them doesn't necessarily force a false equivalence.

Edited by AlleyOop
25th Mar, 2020 05:14:03 PM

That's true, it does happen; what comes to mind is the death threats one artist received for drawing a SU character differently than what people wanted.

The PC side can be just as insane and hostile as the Anti-PC side and while they're less likely to do these things, if you aren't trying to be one-sided...idk. It just seems a little weird to only point out the extremity on one side of the issue.

25th Mar, 2020 05:23:16 PM

Collectively perhaps it's valid to argue that they're not the same, but this is about being descriptive towards individual examples of ridiculous haters and their behavior, and it's entirely possible for a given single exemplar of the PC brigade to be worse than another random individual from the anti-PC brigade and engage in that level of toxicity. We don't need to make any kind of equivalence at all by pointing it out.

25th Mar, 2020 05:28:47 PM

^ Right, adding in a mention of PC brigader's doxxing and threatening people wouldn't be the same as saying "These sides are the same". It'd just be stating facts, like you're already doing with the Anti-PC brigade entry. It'd only be a false-equivalence if you specifically state somewhere that they're "just as bad" as the other side.

25th Mar, 2020 05:29:21 PM

Yeah. The harassment is rife in YA fiction coumminties, and shows like Voltron, Steven Universe, and Ok Ko had their creators harassed for shipping and other petty reasons. Werent small instances either

We should get a mod to weigh in on this. Too much risk of importing drama, but the trope itself is fine.

Edited by DrPsyche
25th Mar, 2020 05:30:32 PM

Besides, deleting the third bullet point already takes care of that false equivalence for the most part, with the remainder of the work being to trim the other two to the basics of their behavior just like every other entry on that page does, instead of getting into the fine-print of every terrible thing they've done.

25th Mar, 2020 05:46:04 PM

"'s entirely possible for a given single exemplar of the PC brigade to be worse than another random individual from the anti-PC brigade and engage in that level of toxicity. We don't need to make any kind of equivalence at all by pointing it out."

But that is exactly what that sort of equivalence is. Pointing out that "one single example" of a group can be equal or more toxic than a major portion of the opposing group is the definition of false equivalence. You don't, for example, point to the KKK and then point back at the single most toxic person in the 1963 Civil Rights Movement and then try to point out "both'.

These examples are discussing these groups in sweeping generalizations. If, by your own admission, the behavior isn't general with both groups, then we don't mention it as if it were. Unless, we make it VERY clear that it's more common and more pervasive in one group than the other.

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 05:49:12 PM

If that's the case then sure. Especially since other kinds of hater categories also engage in death threats and doxxing. But either we mention it for both, or we mention neither. Not one and not the other, nor should we explicitly state that one group is worse than the other, because that's definitely not within the purview of the article. And as I pointed out with the above Philosophy Tube link, sometimes the PC Brigade Hate Dumb can be more hostile than the Anti-PC Brigade for a given situation.

Edited by AlleyOop
25th Mar, 2020 05:59:10 PM

It actually is very pervasive if you know where to look for it, and nobody is saying that both groups are the same because one member from the first might be as bad as everyone in the second. It's stating facts, and not mentioning it in one case makes it far more lopsided than it needs to be, even if that wasn't your intention. The fact that the rest of us all found it unbalanced is telling; and putting in the doxxing part now will stop someone from going in later to point out that, ACTUALLY...

25th Mar, 2020 05:59:51 PM

Again, I'm fine with not mentioning either. I was the one who proposed leaving it to a one-sentence description, because I knew this was the exact sort of problem that would arise.

Yes, again, you've mentioned that some people can be hostile. However, you also said "No they're not equivalent". If they're not equivalent, then we don't describe them as such.

^ If you have to go looking for it, then it's not exactly pervasive. Yes, if you look hard enough in any group, you will eventually cherry-pick. Also, I don't like the idea of adding questionable content to an example just to stop other people from adding it later. If anything, that sounds like a reason that the examples as a whole should be nuked.

Sure, the "rest of you" found it "unbalanced", but I'm pretty sure I've done a very good job of demonstrating exactly why you both are promoting false equivalence.

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 06:14:04 PM

I meant have to look for it as in, it's super common in certain parts of the internet while the reverse is more common on other parts of the internet. For example, I can name multiple examples of this off the top of my head from only existing on the internet and hearing about them, the same as you can probably do for the Anti-PC side. What we're trying to say is, even if you think it's uncommon doesn't mean it is; it's just less common. Which is why they're not equivalent.

Nobody is trying to say they are.

We're just saying that the examples are one-sided and the way to fix it would be to either add the same information to both or to remove the same information from both. That's not making them a false equivalence, that's just avoiding bias of any kind and pointing out that this happens on both sides (which I don't see as making an equivalent, as again we're just stating facts and not claiming any similarities between the groups. If according to the raw facts they read as being equals on paper, fine, but that's not our goal here). Either it should be relevant to both examples or not at all.

25th Mar, 2020 06:19:54 PM

OK, if the "rest of you" means the majority of people in the discussion, then we go the way of "the rest of you". That's how consensus works.

Resolve this quickly, or it's getting locked and has to be taken somewhere else.

25th Mar, 2020 06:22:53 PM

You can't argue that something is "super common in certain parts of the internet while the reverse is more common on other parts". Either one side is less common, no matter where you look, or it's not. You don't cherry-pick sections of the internet to look for it. If it is less common, then I repeat: we don't treat them as equivalent. Adding "the same information to both" inherently treats them as they are.

The issue here isn't "bias"—it's accuracy. To repeat, not every disagreement is equal. We don't inflate or deflate one side to balance the other.

Even with the Philosophy Tube example, Alley Oop provided, I just googled "Philosophy Tube"+"Death threats" and every example I found were cases where he described getting death threats from right wingers opposed to his message (or he didn't specify). I'm not going to doubt Alley Oop when they say they saw him call out the "PC Crusader" crowd for sending him said threats, but if he did, it's not nearly as him calling out the other side for it.

^ EDIT: Fine, how's this:

  • Both PC Crusaders and Anti-PC Crusaders have been called out for being obnoxious, toxic, and at times even dangerous. On the one hand, you have Soapbox Sadies who shame and discredit anyone who does something they deem "problematic" or who isn't "woke" enough, and on the other, you have over-sensitive reactionaries who call any attempts to diversify or address troublesome tropes as "pandering to SJWs". No matter which side you look at, there have been incidents of doxxing, harassment, and other atrocious behavior.

Edited by NubianSatyress
25th Mar, 2020 06:28:55 PM

He literally talks about it with great detail in the video I linked. As well as mentions his friends and several tangentially related people getting harassed.

I got death threats, I got encouragements of suicide, I was accused of various crimes and perversions, my personal life was speculated on, my loved ones were insulted, at one point my personal information was just posted publicly. Some people even went through my mental health videos to find the specific words that would hurt me the most, which... points for effort, at least.


I have been targeted in the past by three hatemobs. Neo-Nazis, transphobes, and this one. And this one was unquestionably the most venomous yet.

Anyway, see the mod's note above. And yes that rewrite is somewhat better.

Edited by AlleyOop
25th Mar, 2020 06:31:50 PM

^^ Now that write-up works for me.

25th Mar, 2020 06:36:45 PM

^^ Sorry, I didn't notice the link the first time I read that reply. However, note that he also says that while the harassment he got was "the most venomous by far", note that he also says that he more commonly gets that harassment from the opposing viewpoint. That being said, maybe the vitriol in this case gives it more weight.

25th Mar, 2020 11:13:15 PM

That's a good rewrite, combining the two entries into one really works.


How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: