Ask The Tropers

Twilight has a lot of problematic content in it but it's also true that there's been a resurgence of people looking back on it and saying "Ya know, it's very flawed, but we can still enjoy it". I haven't seen the Lindsay Ellis video on the subject, but she's not the sort of reviewer who would just completely overlook glaring flaws like that even in a work she's defending...

>no one gave Twilight shit because girls liked it

Well that's just plain untrue. Frankly, its many legitimate flaws were overshadowed by the fact that people like to mock the "silly teenage girl thing".

Yeah, they have a few other edits reasons in their history that are straight up rude, if not confrontational.

That wasn't the point of the video. Lindsay was saying that a lot of the virtriol against Twilight were from people (who haven't read the book or watched the movie) who mocked it for being popular with teenage girls and went deeper into the topic of society not valuing things that are popular with young girls and such. Twilight is pretty run of the mill when it comes among YA romance novels when it comes to problematic content and such.

But anyways that troper does have have a problem with rude edit reasons.

Several people have noted. Has anyone sent notifiers?

I just sent a couple now for the rude reason mentioned above as well as one they made on The Flintstones.

Even if they disagree with Lindsay's argument, it's ridiculous to flat out deny the resurgence of Twilight fandom. You can't delete a YMMV entry about an objective fandom trend just because you are not part of that fandom trend; you can note the negative implications of Twilight and the criticisms Lindsay faced for her video on it elsewhere on the page, or amend the entries accordingly. Not just flat out delete the other opinions.

It's also ridiculous to act like everynody only ragged on it for its poor morals and not "LOL sparkling vampires, so LAME!" as I can attest from my past reading the long gone Wallbanger page on the franchise. Though I'm unsure if Twilight counts as Vindicated by History since talks about its racism and such have risen in tandem with its newfound fandom.

I'd restore the example on YMMV.Lindsay Ellis as it was deleted without an edit reason, but I don't know what it was deleted from.

My guess is Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped but as-written it doesn't actually fit that.

^ Yes, it was Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped, but does that apply to video essays where the "anvil" is basically the thesis?

I don't think it applies to any non-fiction work. Or at least I wouldn't list it in one.

The context of the video is that Twilight had an undeserved amount of hatred merely because it's popular with teen girls. The "bad role models" argument is used as a smokescreen for this.

She has a video series on Michael Bay's Transformers, which one could argue imports bad morals as well. Shia Labeouf's character's immaturity, Marc Wahlberg's harmful machismo, and the narrative's blatant objectification of women are celebrated. This would would teach the teenage boy demographic "bad morals" as well, but the franchise has not received the same amount of vitriol that Twilight did.

I wouldn't call it a "smokescreen" as the criticisms directed at the characters and morals and stuff were all valid. But you're right that it got more hatred than it would've if it were directed at boys instead of girls.

Anyway, I checked out his history, and he's pretty much only got political edits. That seems to be the only reason he ever edits anything.

He tends to edit out acknowledgment of transphobia, or any other sort of social justice related concerns, with somewhat rude or condescending edit reasons. Even if these concerns go off topic and might be worth cutting down, his reasoning sounds very antagonistic. Here (though it might be questionable Nightmare Fuel since it's appealing to a specific group of people, even though that fear is very understandable, that doesn't seem to be his concern) and here (I don't know how credible this was, but calling it a "crock of shit" sounds like the wrong way to go), and here are some examples.

I'm concerned about all of ^ those edits, particularly the Ace Ventura one claiming that the character isn't "really trans", and then referring to them by the wrong gender pronouns.

It's... genuinely very up in the air whether the character in Ace Ventura was transgender or just found it an effective disguise (largely because [sigh] the ninties), but it's effectively irrelevant as that doesn't change the fact that scene in question is A: something that would be considered transphobic nowadays and B: could very well be unsettling to someone who could have experienced something similar.

Now as ^^ there might be valid reasons to pull that, but it's Right for the Wrong Reasons at best.

Anyone send him a PM about this thread?

Good idea, Larkmarn. I just did.