Ask The Tropers

If the game features a small community (say, 100) and a large group of immigrants (such as, 50 or more) are trying to join, it might be valid. Without that factor, it is whataboutism being used to defend an opinion, not a relevant point in a debate. The "what-about" is "what about immigrants that have problems?" or "what about large numbers of immigrants?".

Well to be clear; it's a parody of the EDL, and the game's set in London 20 Minutes into the Future.

In that case, it sounds like calling the parody a strawman and saying that they have a point would run afoul of ROCEJ.

While this is not an argument that holds up well IRL, if the game is presenting this point to the player and game does at least seem to give some credit to the point, than the idea behind the entry has some amount of merit to it. As it is written now though, it probably should be adjusted a bit since it isn't really clear why their views in game may have merit.

Like if the game shows some signs they have a point, it should be brought up. Without that context, it should be removed.

Yeah. Unless the immigrants actually do cause this kind of harm, it's just "The Great Replacement" drivel.

On a less important note, I'm pretty sure they're misusing What Do You Mean, It's Not Political? by listing aspects of the game that very clearly seem to have political subtext.

More relevantly, hey also previously shoehorned in some junk about Trump and lockdowns in this entry, which was removed later because it was comparing lockdowns to authoritarianism. I'm not familiar with the game but this comparison seems like a red flag.

Or... since it is a real life group the game is satirizing, that means that obviously real human beings exist who think that the strawman argument is legit, since they already agree with it. Therefore, to say that some people think the strawman has a point is legitimate. Some of those people may count as the audience, even. And may react in such a way. Some sort of "audience reaction" as it were...

No, the point still has to show up in the work. It's like trying to say a "pineapple on pizza" strawman has a point when they say it tastes good. In order for the argument to have a point, the game itself has to feature the chance to choose pizza toppings. Random characters saying what they prefer on pizzas isn't an argument, just flavour. Again, in order for the argument to apply to the work, those problem have to appear in the work.

So, if the work had the EDAF say "too many immigrants will take jobs from our own citizens" for example, and then the work shows that unemployment really is going up in their fictional world, then that would count. But if the EDAF says that, and then the job situation clearly doesn't change, then it doesn't count?

I guess I get that, though it doesn't entirely match with how I thought the Strawman Has a Point trope was supposed to work. My impression was that, you know, it's an audience reaction. To say that the work itself needs to objectively show how the strawman was right makes it an objective trope instead.

I mean, it's always going to be a bit subjective if the strawman has enough behind their reasoning to have a valid point.

Like if a Straw Feminist says that "You can't leave your boyfriend alone with a woman. Men always cheat if they get the chance," and then her boyfriend does cheat when left alone with a woman... Some people would point out that this doesn't justify her generalization. Other people would say that she's shown to be right.

That's true... though to be fair, to that example of the Straw Feminist, having a point doesn't preclude them still being wrong overall. They are still a strawman after all.

But also there is the question raised earlier of "does a character created as an Acceptable Targets satire of an existing group count as a strawman?" And I would answer yes to that personally.

I feel like any attempt to prove this as a valid audience reaction is going to lead to a huge flame war and it'll be like that ridiculously long argument we had on ATT just a couple of days ago.

"There are real life people who believe in this argument" is not good enough to count as Strawman Has a Point. The point is that the work presents someone as being on "the wrong side" even though every point that person makes is correct or at the very least logical.

For example, take the argument in the page pic of that trope: Tim Drake argues that using drugs is wrong because it's "against the law"; Tim is supposed to be right here and the drug-user is supposed to be wrong. Clearly, there are real life people who believe what both of these people think, but that isn't the point. The point is that the work believes that Tim Drake is right, even though Tim's argument is weak, unsound and hypocritcal (Tim is a vigilante that works outside the law himself.

"Someone in real life agrees that the strawman has a point" doesn't work, because if there's anything we've learned in this political climate, it's that you can get at least a few thousand (if not a few million) people to agree with any idea including flat earth, anti-vaccination, and anything else.

I have removed the entry in question to the discussion page and am asking that people continue the discussion there. I'll also notify colleagues about the troper.

FWIW, the troper in question still seems to be at it. Trying to add natter to a Unfortunate Implications entry (link).

You're probably better off starting a new ATT to draw attention to it (you can add a link to this one, tho)

For what it's worth, that UI needs to be cut for being effectively unsourced (or it needs an actual source). The link only covers what the games does, not any implications, unfortunate or otherwise.