[009]
MasamiPhoenix
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
SO my reason on the history got cut off, but I restored a lot of items that were dummied out. Most of them were listed as
to:
SO my reason on the history got cut off, but I restored a lot of items that were dummied out. Most of them were listed as \"Zero Context\" even though there is context (although some of them could use more which I addressed) or else that there was indentation issues (which should just be fixed instead of dummied out) or tropes are general (which also wasn\'t very accurate). If these are going to to be removed, more specific information needs to be listed as to why, so we can address the issue involved.
Here are the ones I restored. If anybody feels there\'s a problem with any of them, please explain it and I will make sure it gets corrected.
* AndIMustScream: Weiss, after being hypnotized by Ruby.
--> \'\'\'Ruby:\'\'\' Let\'s go, bestie! I have our whole day planned!
--> \'\'\'Weiss:\'\'\' That sounds super fun...even though I\'m screaming inside!
* BigWhat: Ruby\'s reaction to when Yang calls her character in Ruby\'s Red Riding Hood play a \"Mary Sue\".
(Under Cape Snag)
** Qrow\'s transition animation has him have trouble with the cape, too.
* CoolBigSis: Ruby regards Yang in this light, with a whole skit dedicated to comparing their relationship to that between Weiss and [[AloofBigSister Winter]].
* FanserviceFauxFight: What Sun, Ren, and Neptune were hoping team RWBY\'s pillow fight was going to be. Of course, since this is RWBY (Chibi no less) it was instead SeriousBusiness.
GoLookAtTheDistraction had context, but not much, so I did improve it.
* HughMann: Penny is very bad at hiding her robotic nature.
%% -->\'\'\'Ruby:\'\'\' She\'s completely normal, isn\'t that right, Penny?
%% -->\'\'\'Penny:\'\'\' That is correct. I am a normal meat person just like you!
* IntentionalEngrishForFunny: The \'\'Syrupu\'\' writing on Ren\'s syrup bottle.
(under KleptomaniacHero)
** Season 3, episode 1, has Ruby somehow manage to accidentally rob a bank.
NoIndoorVoice was a zero context example, so I improved it.
(this was under pun, ironically turning it into a Zero Context Entry)
** The news article about the \"cat burglar\" gets a couple of cat-related puns in.
-->\'\'\'Lisa:\'\'\' Reports of a cat burglar being on the prowl in Vale have flooded the police department this week. Whether these claims are legitimate or merely a yarn, citizens are encouraged to stay indoors.
** Yang\'s open mic act in episode 16 is made almost entirely of puns. [[IncrediblyLamePun Bad ones]].
-->\'\'\'Yang\'\'\': Did you hear about the teacher at Beacon who had an eye patch? I heard they had to let him go... turns out he only had one pupil!
** In Episode 20, after a game of \'\'fetch\'\' with Zwei ruined Roman\'s revenge plan and gotten both him and Neo blown sky high:
-->\'\'\'Roman:\'\'\' I can\'t feel my legs! Neo, how do I look?
-->\'\'\'Neo:\'\'\' ([[ParasolParachute floating slowly toward the ground]]) Fetching.
Here are the ones I restored. If anybody feels there\'s a problem with any of them, please explain it and I will make sure it gets corrected.
* AndIMustScream: Weiss, after being hypnotized by Ruby.
--> \'\'\'Ruby:\'\'\' Let\'s go, bestie! I have our whole day planned!
--> \'\'\'Weiss:\'\'\' That sounds super fun...even though I\'m screaming inside!
* BigWhat: Ruby\'s reaction to when Yang calls her character in Ruby\'s Red Riding Hood play a \"Mary Sue\".
(Under Cape Snag)
** Qrow\'s transition animation has him have trouble with the cape, too.
* CoolBigSis: Ruby regards Yang in this light, with a whole skit dedicated to comparing their relationship to that between Weiss and [[AloofBigSister Winter]].
* FanserviceFauxFight: What Sun, Ren, and Neptune were hoping team RWBY\'s pillow fight was going to be. Of course, since this is RWBY (Chibi no less) it was instead SeriousBusiness.
GoLookAtTheDistraction had context, but not much, so I did improve it.
* HughMann: Penny is very bad at hiding her robotic nature.
%% -->\'\'\'Ruby:\'\'\' She\'s completely normal, isn\'t that right, Penny?
%% -->\'\'\'Penny:\'\'\' That is correct. I am a normal meat person just like you!
* IntentionalEngrishForFunny: The \'\'Syrupu\'\' writing on Ren\'s syrup bottle.
(under KleptomaniacHero)
** Season 3, episode 1, has Ruby somehow manage to accidentally rob a bank.
NoIndoorVoice was a zero context example, so I improved it.
(this was under pun, ironically turning it into a Zero Context Entry)
** The news article about the \"cat burglar\" gets a couple of cat-related puns in.
-->\'\'\'Lisa:\'\'\' Reports of a cat burglar being on the prowl in Vale have flooded the police department this week. Whether these claims are legitimate or merely a yarn, citizens are encouraged to stay indoors.
** Yang\'s open mic act in episode 16 is made almost entirely of puns. [[IncrediblyLamePun Bad ones]].
-->\'\'\'Yang\'\'\': Did you hear about the teacher at Beacon who had an eye patch? I heard they had to let him go... turns out he only had one pupil!
** In Episode 20, after a game of \'\'fetch\'\' with Zwei ruined Roman\'s revenge plan and gotten both him and Neo blown sky high:
-->\'\'\'Roman:\'\'\' I can\'t feel my legs! Neo, how do I look?
-->\'\'\'Neo:\'\'\' ([[ParasolParachute floating slowly toward the ground]]) Fetching.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"devs want to bash Christians\" undertones. Accusing the devs of having a secret agenda comes off as conspiracy theory-ish without a statement from someone on the team or *very* strong proof (which I explained earlier, so not rehashing that). Jumping right to malicious intent is iffy in any circumstance.
I get that you\'re saying that you\'re not making accusations, but that\'s how your entry sounds.
Now, if you want to bring up the idea of discrimination against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people in this discussion (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged (And is the thing about Cora\'s hairstyle even on the page anymore? All I\'m seeing is the backlash over M/M romances).
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long here if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, and it comes back up, I won\'t touch it. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
I get that you\'re saying that you\'re not making accusations, but that\'s how your entry sounds.
Now, if you want to bring up the idea of discrimination against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people in this discussion (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged (And is the thing about Cora\'s hairstyle even on the page anymore? All I\'m seeing is the backlash over M/M romances).
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long here if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, and it comes back up, I won\'t touch it. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"devs want to bash Christians\" undertones. Accusing the devs of having a secret agenda comes off as conspiracy theory-ish without a statement from someone on the team or *very* strong proof (which I explained earlier, so not rehashing that). Jumping right to malicious intent is iffy in any circumstance.
I get that you\'re saying that you\'re not making accusations, but that\'s how your entry sounds.
Now, if you want to bring up a secret dev agenda against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged (And is the thing about Cora\'s hairstyle even on the page anymore? All I\'m seeing is the backlash over M/M romances).
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long here if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, and it comes back up, I won\'t touch it. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
I get that you\'re saying that you\'re not making accusations, but that\'s how your entry sounds.
Now, if you want to bring up a secret dev agenda against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged (And is the thing about Cora\'s hairstyle even on the page anymore? All I\'m seeing is the backlash over M/M romances).
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long here if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, and it comes back up, I won\'t touch it. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"devs want to bash Christians\" undertones. Accusing the devs of having a secret agenda comes off as conspiracy theory-ish without a statement from someone on the team or *very* strong proof (which I explained earlier, so not rehashing that). Jumping right to malicious intent is iffy in any circumstance.
I get that you\'re saying that you\'re not making accusations, but that\'s how your entry sounds.
Now, if you want to bring up a secret dev agenda against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged (And is the thing about Cora\'s hairstyle even on the page anymore? All I\'m seeing is the backlash over M/M romances).
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long here if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, whatever. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m just trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
I get that you\'re saying that you\'re not making accusations, but that\'s how your entry sounds.
Now, if you want to bring up a secret dev agenda against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged (And is the thing about Cora\'s hairstyle even on the page anymore? All I\'m seeing is the backlash over M/M romances).
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long here if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, whatever. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m just trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"devs want to bash Christians\" undertones. Accusing the devs of having a secret agenda comes off as conspiracy theory-ish without a statement from the devs or *very* strong proof (I\'m talking the kett actually acting like (non-fanatical) Christians and not a generic cult that just pulls names from Christianity). There are other perfectly plausible explanations (laziness, rule of symbolism, easy recognizability) that I pointed out in an earlier posts, and jumping right to malicious intent is iffy in any circumstance.
Now, if you want to claim a secret dev agenda against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, whatever. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m just trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
Now, if you want to claim a secret dev agenda against a group that\'s considered privileged by a lot of people, you\'re gonna need even more proof. Other people (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. \"Reverse discrimination\" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, whatever. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m just trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"devs want to bash Christians\" undertones. Accusing the devs of having a secret agenda comes off as conspiracy theory-ish without a statement from the devs or *very* strong proof (I\'m talking the kett actually acting like (non-fanatical) Christians) and not a generic cult that just pulls names from Christianity. I mentioned the other possible reasons for that in my earlier posts.
In most cases, laziness or carelessness or \"rule of cool/symbolism/whatever is more plausible than \"secret dev agenda,\" especially against what they know is the majority of their target audience.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, whatever. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m just trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
In most cases, laziness or carelessness or \"rule of cool/symbolism/whatever is more plausible than \"secret dev agenda,\" especially against what they know is the majority of their target audience.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
I don\'t want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, whatever. I don\'t own the page. But I\'m just trying to explain why it\'s a potential problem.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"devs want to bash Christians\" undertones. Accusing the devs of having a secret agenda comes off as conspiracy theory-ish without a statement from the devs or *very* strong proof (I\'m talking the kett actually acting like (non-fanatical) Christians) and not a generic cult that just pulls names from Christianity. I mentioned the other possible reasons for that in my earlier posts.
In most cases, laziness or carelessness or \"rule of cool/symbolism/whatever is more plausible than \"secret dev agenda,\" especially against what they know is the majority of their target audience.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
In most cases, laziness or carelessness or \"rule of cool/symbolism/whatever is more plausible than \"secret dev agenda,\" especially against what they know is the majority of their target audience.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I\'ve seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site.
If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"discrimination against Christians\" undertones. Christians are widely considered a privileged group, even if individuals (probably Christians themselves) disagree. Throwing around accusations of discrimination in that context, unless there\'s no other reasonable interpretation, can come off in ways you don\'t intend.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true.
If the LGBT issues were up for debate on the page, or about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true.
If the LGBT issues were up for debate on the page, or about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the
to:
1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the \"discrimination against Christians\" undertones. Christians are widely considered a privileged group, even if individuals (probably Christians themselves) disagree, so claiming that they\'re being discriminated against can come off in ways you don\'t intend.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true.
If the LGBT issues were up for debate on the page, or about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
2.) Both myself and NubianSatyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true.
If the LGBT issues were up for debate on the page, or about one person\'s opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged.
Speculations on the devs\' intentions don\'t live long on the page if they\'re just an individual\'s opinion, or that of a vocal minority.
Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made \"ugly\" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.
